MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Spatial Impact of Language Policies on the Marginal Bids for English Education in Hong Kong

2010· article· en· W1856826781 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Mok, Ling Hin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGrowth and Change · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversity of Hong Kong
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Medium of instructionPublic policySchool choiceEnglish languagePrivate educationPrivate schoolLanguage policyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsEconomic growthPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyHigher educationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In 1997 the government of Hong Kong reformed its policy on the language medium for teaching at the secondary‐school level and removed schools' right to choose their own medium. Among the 404 public and “aided” secondary schools in Hong Kong, the government allowed only 100 to use English as the medium for teaching and required the remaining 304 to use the native language, Chinese. The authors assess the spatial impact of the policy reform and estimate the bid function for English‐language schools. The results show that the 1997 policy reform shifted parental preferences from public to private education and increased the marginal bid for proximity to private English schools by 2 percent. Following the reform, homeowners were willing to pay, on average, HK $8,400 for each additional 100 metres closer to a private English school.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrowth and ChangeSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207