MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547867806 · doi:10.14288/tci.v11i2.185892

Hakbeolism: A Historical and Curricular Consideration of Korean Test-Focused Education

2014· article· en· W1547867806 on OpenAlexaff
Jung‐Hoon Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychosocial Factors Impacting Youth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumViewpointsPoliticsTest (biology)SociologyField (mathematics)Curriculum theoryCultural capitalSocial sciencePedagogyMathematics educationCurriculum developmentPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of curriculum requires consideration not only of the history of the field but also of a country’s history, and culture, since interactions among these elements may contribute to our understanding of curriculum today. Korean curriculum, for instance, while being strongly influenced by the U.S., has nevertheless retained its fundamental traditions. The strong emphasis on standardized tests in Korea today points to hakbeolism, a kind of social symbolic capital people achieve based on a shared academic background, which was established in the tenth century. The strong force for hakbeol continues to drive educational fever in the society and to degrade students’ efforts in their learning into only preparation for tests. This paper introduces the concept of hakbeolism and analyzes its historical, cultural, and political influences on Korean curriculum today. It concludes with a discussion of hakbeolism’s dire consequences from societal (also political), curricular, and personal (psychological) viewpoints.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.326
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicPsychosocial Factors Impacting YouthFrench-language works237,207