MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537737801

Trend Toward “Harmonious Man” Education: Analyze Developing Direction of Collectivism Education in New Period

2015· article· en· W1537737801 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollectivismIdeologySociologyPeriod (music)Harmony (color)Environmental ethicsEconomic growthSocial sciencePolitical sciencePublic relationsLawIndividualismAestheticsEconomicsPhilosophyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collectivism education is the important content of moral education and quality education. At present, it became significant in moral education in schools. It is essential to strengthen and improve collectivism education in schools nowadays. At present, collectivism education facing the crisis of human is not no care of human question, but incomplete “being” of human. Educational practice let human requirement be suppressed by needs of society and ideology. Strengthening minds, but neglecting the spiritual education of human made spirit become empty and poor. “Harmony” became the real requirement of collectivism education and individual development. From “discover people” to “know people”, “return of human being” in collectivism education has changed the crisis of abandoning educational nature. The author thinks the development problem of collectivism education in the new period is period “new human being” development problem. From practice sight, collectivism education should get rid of one-dimension “rational man”. Trending toward “harmonious man” education is the inevitable choice of collectivism education development in the new period. Self-discipline and heteronomy are two routes to cultivate harmonious man.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational StudiesFrench-language works237,207