Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of self-consciousness is the most important issue faced by psychological health education of college students, and is also the important contradiction to be solved by ideological and political education. Since we-media has the features of randomness, uniqueness and interaction which happen to meet college students’ demands of active minds, intense curiosity, and strong desires for self-expression, it is able to be widespread among college students. However at the same time, we-media characterized by liberalization, personalization and equalization has also brought obstacles and confusions to college students’ consciousness development, presenting new challenges with features of the times to ideological and political education. This article takes college students’ consciousness development as the logical origin, clarifies the impact of we-media on their consciousness development, help ideological and political educators work in line with college students’ psychological development, help ideological and political educators achieve “humanistic care and psychological consultation” in the environment of we-media, and help improve the effectiveness and timeliness of ideological and political education. As the logical end, the author proposes that college organizations and ideological and political educators should face the development of college student we-media with an opener mind and equal attitude, ideological and political teachers and counselors should analyze the real-time dynamic ideas of college students in more convenient channels, counselors and psychological health teachers should lead college students’ consciousness development to a healthy direction with personalized we-media construction, should grasp main channels to develop good moralities of student we-media environment, and firmly hold the position to shape the we-media leader image of student organizations and student cadres.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".