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 OpenAlex
Jung‐Hoon Jung

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

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.030
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