Governing carbon: China in global climate politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to examine the dynamics of China’s engagement with global \nclimate change. After critically reviewing mainstream neo-realist and neo-liberal \ninstitutionalist approaches to International Relations and climate change, the thesis \ndevelops a revised governmentality framework based on a critical engagement with \ncritical IPE and Foucauldian approaches. This provides the basis for an analytical \nframework focusing on four distinct ‘rationalities of government’ in China’s climate \nchange politics and governance, which are sovereignty, development, market and the \nenvironment. The genealogical examination of these four governmental rationalities has \ndemonstrated the dynamics among them and the relations of state/society/party in \nChina. By applying this analytical framework, the thesis critically examines two \ndistinctive fields of China’s climate change politics: international politics and the Clean \nDevelopment Mechanism in China. The thesis argues that although neo-liberal \ngovernmentality appears dominant in global climate politics, the case study of China \nreveals different dynamics in which the rationalities of sovereignty and development \nhave played the more influential roles. By contrast, the market rationality has been \ninstrumentalised in China for the pursuit of economic growth and the environmental \nrationality has been marginalised. The thesis contends that the uneven relations among \nthese rationalities have to be grasped through historical and contextual exploration. \nDifferent paths and mentalities of state formation and modernisation have had \nsignificant influences on China’s politics and governance of climate change in both \ninternational and domestic levels. The findings from this research help to explain the \nchanges and continuities in China’s positions in international climate negotiations, in its \nregulation of the carbon market, and in the formation of climate knowledge and \nmentalities under the rule of the Communist Party
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".