MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1838275934 · doi:10.3968/6093

China Mode of Preferential Development of Education in Ethnic Areas: Comparison and Selection

2014· article· en· W1838275934 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiang Li, Xuefang Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in sociology of science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Ethnic Minorities and Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMode (computer interface)Ethnic groupPerspective (graphical)ChinaImmigrationMode of productionFeature (linguistics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Political scienceEconomic growthEconomic geographyGeographyProduction (economics)Computer scienceEconomicsArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the perspective of origin and way of use of the factors of production, the Chinese mode of preferential development for education in ethnic areas could be clarified into mode of “hematopoiesis”,mode of “transfusion” and mode of”immigration”. When comparing these three modes from the dimensions of feature, environment and objective, we could find that these different modes have their own advantages and disadvantages when we have different emphasis. The educational development in ethnic areas should choose a proper mode, considering the specific issues and situations, thus the objective of development could be achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.013
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in sociology of scienceSame topicChina's Ethnic Minorities and RelationsFrench-language works237,207