MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502907293 · doi:10.1353/chn.2014.0020

Confucius Institutes: Multiple Reactions and Interactions

2014· article· en· W1502907293 on OpenAlex
Chi-Cheung Leung, Hilary du Cros

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChina An International Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaWonderSoft powerPhenomenonPerspective (graphical)Power (physics)Political scienceSociologyPublic relationsEconomic growthPsychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyPhilosophyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid establishment of Confucius Institutes all over the world has raised a question of doubt about the motivation of China. From the perspective of China, the institutes can help to promote Chinese language and culture, and project a positive image of China as a benign country. However, other countries may wonder how far China would like to exert its soft power and cultural influence on the rest of the world. This article aims to examine multiple reactions and interactions related to this issue. To understand views from different perspectives, a survey of academics, researchers and Confucius Institute administrators was conducted and diverse views were found. Accordingly, the development of mutual trust associated with the phenomenon appears to be at an early stage, and the impact of Confucius Institutes on their host countries is not yet fully apparent.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.305 · 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