Bibliographic record
Abstract
The East Asian states such as China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam have taken radically different trajectories of state-making in modern history. Korea and Japan today are rated as full democracies whereas China and Vietnam are the single-party authoritarian political systems. Despite their fundamental differences, scholars have noted the authoritarian developmental state of 1960-70s Korea and the authoritarian single-party dictatorship of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1978. Will the economic development of China eventually follow the Korean model of democratization? Will the economic liberalization of China call for political liberalization? Such questions have been underlying in constitutional discourses (xianzheng luntan 憲政論壇) in China today. These constitutional discourses arose in the early 2010s among a diverse group of public intellectuals including legal scholars, philosophers, political theorists, historians, Confucian classicists, etc. In 2013, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) decided rather abruptly to suppress those who promoted “constitutional democracy,” and supported the proponents of Confucian constitutionalism. In this article, I will argue that constitutional discourses in China today have revealed the irreconcilable tension between the Leninist state of the PRC and its market economy, and that China will be forced by domestic problems as well as global forces to take the Korean mode of political liberalization. Furthermore, I will argue that Confucian constitutionalism is possible and meaningful in China today only in so far as the spirit of Confucianism is used to constrain the powers of the CCP and protect and expand the rights of the individuals. Otherwise, Confucian constitutionalism will deteriorate soon into another pretext giving a new lease of life to the CCP’s one-party dictatorship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".