MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W946025153 · doi:10.22439/cjas.v31i2.4331

The Gradual Encroachment of an Idea: Large Enterprise Groups in China

2014· article· en· W946025153 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaChinese University of Hong KongUniversität HeidelbergCopenhagen Business School
KeywordsChinaMonopolyState (computer science)PoliticsContext (archaeology)Developmental stateControl (management)Economic systemEconomicsPolitical scienceMarket economyManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article illuminates the ideational foundations of China's 'large enterprise strategy', an early experiment in China's efforts to employ industrial policy to cultivate a group of state-controlled business groups. Based on archival research, the author argues that Chinese policymakers believed the development of state-owned large enterprises would bring several kinds of benefits, both economic and political. Drawing eclectically from Marxian economics and the history of capitalist development in East Asia, they argued that large enterprises could serve as both engines of domestic development and as safeguards and vanguards in the context of China's re-entry to the global marketplace. These enterprise groups were also seen as key elements in a market-conforming model of state control that senior officials began to envision and plan for as early as the late 1980s. The archival documents also shed light on internal debate in the 1980s and 1990s about the pros and cons of promoting monopolies, the substance of which anticipates much of the current heated discussion about China's 'monopoly industries' (longduan hangye垄断行业).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Copenhagen Journal of Asian StudiesSame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207