MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Achievements and Difficulties - Review Ten Years of Media Literacy Education in China

2010· article· en· W1698249433 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Feng Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedia literacyChinaHumanitiesLiteracyPolitical scienceLiteracy educationSociologyPedagogyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relevant research and practices of China's media literacy education have a history of ten years. It achieved rapid development through the efforts from all walks of life. Combined with the experience of developed countries in the world, this article elaborates on the achievement of media literacy education as well as analyzes the difficulties faced with China’s media literacy education from theoretical research, mass base, government support, teacher training and other aspects. It also tries to offer some suggestion and opinions. Key words: Media literacy education, China, achievements, difficulties Resume: La recherche et les pratiques en question de l’enseignement secondaire en Chine ont une histoire de dix ans. Elles ont accompli le developpement rapide par les efforts de toutes les demarches de la vie. Combinee avec les experiences des pays developpes dans le monde, cette memoire s’etend sur les reussites de l’enseignement secondaire ainsi que analyse les difficultes faites face a l’enseignement secondaire en Chine de la recherche theoretique, la masse de base, les soutiens gouvernementaux, la formation pour les professeurs et d’autres aspects. Elle essaie aussi de proposer des conseils et des opinions. Mots-Cles: enseignement secondaire, Chine, reussites, difficultes

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207