This is the paper used to support the claim in [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43866446 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43866446. It can be read via an instituti

This is the paper used to support the claim in [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43866446 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43866446. It can be read via an institution account or that website. The main claim is that regions with higher keju quotas had higher incidences of revolutionary activity in 1911, using what appears to be purely statistical methods. The paper's conclusion did not state the abolition of Keju was the decisive factor in the fall of the imperial dynasty, and acknowledged by quoting Huntington's Political Order in Changing Societies, “necessarily involved the alienation of many groups from the existing order” like all revolutions. So I think the author misappropriated the paper to support their own argument. It's possible that the abolition of Keju increased regional unrest which contributed to higher incidences of rebellion in 1911, but itself did not "spark" rebellions on its own. The 1911 revolution began with the Wuchang uprising which was started by Westernized "New Army" divisions of the Qing Dynasty, an effort that began in 1895 and was not tied to Keju. It ended quickly because Yuan Shikai, the real commander of the remaining loyal New army in the North, realized he could make a powerplay by forcing the imperial court to abdicate the convince the revolutionaries to support him as president instead.