The Banner Garrison and Shaocheng Park in Chengdu during Late Imperial and Early Republican Periods: Song Dynasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers urban planning and urban transformation in Chengdu 成都 before and after the 1911 Revolution (辛亥革命). During the Qing 清 period, “The Banner Garrison” (the bannermans’ quarter; 満城) had been an area of heterogeneous Chengdu city separated geographically from the Han Chinese quarter by a wall. Banner Garrison was not influenced at first by the multi-faceted New Politics (新政) of Zhou Shanpei 周善培 who carried out many-sided policies in Chengdu. It did undergo ar adical change, however, when Shaocheng 少城 Park was constructed in the southeast area of Banner Garrison in 1910, and when after the 1911 Revolution, it was incorporated into the Han Chinese quarter.Shaocheng Park was founded with a view to increasing fiscal revenue, so it was intended as an entertainment spot for Han Chinese, rather than a place to integrate the Manchu and Han citizenry. Furthermore, after the 1911 Revolution, many Han Chinese rapidly moved into all parts of the Banner Garrison area. In response to this trend, the authorities promote a series of “back-to-Chinese” policies, including demolishing the wall and changing street names. Foreigners were prohibited to reside in the area, and in Shaocheng Park, a monument mourning the fallen soldiers of the 1911 Revolution was erected and an exhibition hall for promoting commerce and industry was built. In this respect, it seems apparent that the old Banner Garrison was intentionally transformed for the purpose of nationalistic development. Moreover, from the government’s point of view, such development was not to be laissez-faire in character, but more controlled and systematic.Viewed in this light, urban planning during the era in question can be regarded as an attempt to refashion the spatial structure in order to realize a more accurate plan, more progressive than planning during the New Politics era－planning to cope with the existing socioeconomic order.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".