Educating for Democratic Citizenship in a Globalizing World: Some Recent Developments in England and China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares the development of education for democratic citizenship in two apparently diverse nations - China and England - at different moments in their social and economic histories, but both in the process of ‘re-identifying’ themselves globally. It is suggested that, for all their differences, there is sufficient in common between the two nations in terms of how democratic citizenship is perceived and of what might constitute an appropriate education for democratic citizenship for useful inter-national dialogues and exchanges to be initiated between scholars and practitioners in the two countries. The longer experience of a formal citizenship education curriculum in England, including its strengths and weaknesses, are likely to be of help to Chinese scholars, teachers and policymakers in this area, especially given the current piecemeal nature of the design and implementation of citizenship programmes in China; while the ‘fresher’ approach to developing citizenship education programmes by enthusiastic scholars, teachers and policymakers in China is likely to throw fresh light on how citizenship is understood and ‘taught’ in England.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".