MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Confucius' Thoughts on Moral Education in China

2013· article· en· W1596464570 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHigher Education and Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiquetteMoral educationChinaPedagogySociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Confucius was the greatest philosopher and educator in Chinese history. His words and thoughts were recorded in the book The Analects of Confucius by his disciples. This paper mainly introduces Confucius’ thoughts on moral education from three aspects: goal, main contents, and teaching methods. According to Confucius, cultivating a completely virtuous person (‘Junzi’) is the goal of moral education. The idea of benevolence (‘Ren’) is regarded as the core of Confucius’ moral thoughts and the idea of etiquette (‘Li’) is the external form of ‘Ren’. Both of them are main contents of Confucius’ moral education. There are several teaching methods in Confucius’ moral education, such as self-cultivating, individual instruction, enlightening and practice, which are described in this paper. Furthermore, some inspirations which are obtained from Confucius’ moral educational thoughts provide significant reference for contemporary education in China.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.393
Teacher spread0.359 · 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