The Path Thinking About Strengthening the Identity Education of the “Chinese Dream” Among the Minority College Students in Southwest China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article thoroughly thinks the important meaning of the education and practice of the identity of the “Chinese Dream” among the minority college students in southwest China. Through conducting survey, the research group acquires some conclusion. The overall situation of the identity of the “Chinese Dream” among the minority college students in southwest China is fine. But there still are some notable questions in the process of identity, for instance, lacking comprehensive and systemic rational cognition, emotional identity is not stable enough, the presentation of ideals and beliefs is complicated and the cognition and practice disconnect each other. Analyzing the concluding the causes of these problems, and put forward the countermeasures on this basis. There are four major measures to improve the situation, namely innovating the means, channels and methods of the education propaganda of the “Chinese Dream”; Optimize the realistic environment of the state, colleges and universities and individuals; Emphasize the positive role of religious culture; Build relevant long-term mechanism. Along with this way, the identity of the “Chinese Dream” among the minority college students in southwest China will be strengthened.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".