MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1760804649 · doi:10.3968/7065

Research on Chang Po-Ling’s Practice of Persuading People to Donate Money on Education and Its Practical Significance

2015· article· en· W1760804649 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yiming Ren, Mengqi Li

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIdeological and Political Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiligenceService (business)ChinaPoliticsDue diligencePublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceLawBusinessMarketingPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a well-known founder of the Nankai School in the Republican period of China, Chang Po-ling started an example to develop private education and persuade people to donate money on education. During this process, due to his “Nankai spirit”of diligence and striving, Mr. Chang Po-ling who was full of strong patriotic sentiment from beginning to end, affected a lot of domestic military and political figures, entrepreneurs and business owners, schoolfellows, directors, international friends, founds and organizations, and attracted them to support and focus on education initiators. Through various ways and a series of practical activities, Chang Po-ling persistently encouraged everyone to donate money on education and gained the continuous development of Nankai School. When looking back at Chang Po-ling’s process of persuading people to donate money on education, we can not only see his extremely excellent and brilliant achievements on school running, but also can study and reflect on how to utilize social force to service for current education.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicIdeological and Political EducationFrench-language works237,207