MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132878330

Governing the Restless and Young in Contemporary China: in Search for the Chinese Communist Party's Ruling Logic

2010· dissertation· en· W7132878330 on OpenAlexaff
Yao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunismEnthusiasmPoliticsCorporate governanceField (mathematics)Control (management)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores one particular facet of contemporary state-society relationship in China, i.e. state-student relationship. By arguing against the popular observation that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) retreated from Chinese universities as a way of winning students’ support, this thesis claims that the party-state has adopted a “bird cage” strategy in post-Tiananmen university governance. That is to say, the party-state has not only re-established and strengthened its control institutions in universities, but at same time expanded its zone of tolerance and created new outlets for students’ political enthusiasm and participation. A four-city, seven-university field survey was conducted, the result of which supports the view that the CCP’s post-Tiananmen governance strategy has been effective. Respondents agree that party’s governing institutions are resilient and play important roles in students’ life. They also seem to be in agreement with, at least as the survey results indicate, important political ideas promoted by the party-state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207