MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W16073546 · doi:10.5206/cie-eci.v41i2.9202

Teaching English for Economic Competiveness: Emerging Issues and Challenges in English Education in China

2013· article· en· W16073546 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yan Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative and International Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumentalismMarketizationChinaCommodificationDominance (genetics)GlobalizationEnglish languageSociologyPolitical scienceEconomyPsychologyEconomicsMathematics educationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under China’s market economy, English language learning has been adopted as a strategy to promote the nation’s economic competitiveness in a global economy. This development reflects a discourse of linguistic instrumentalism. Based upon individual interviews of 24 English teachers in Zhejiang Province, China, the study reveals that teachers question the assumptions of linguistic instrumentalism, the gatekeeper role of English, the impact of the increasing dominance of English on Chinese language, and their students’ internalization of the belief in the superiority of Anglo culture. In addition, the study suggests that as a result of globalization, the delivery of English education in China has experienced unprecedented marketization and privatization. Despite increases in their salaries, teachers still live in poor conditions. Under the fee-paying principle, parents expect teachers to provide the best service to their children, and as such the relations between teachers and students have become like those between businesses and clients. It seems evident that teaching has been devalued and commodified in the age of market economy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative and International EducationSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207