MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1857774984 · doi:10.3968/5899

Variations of “Large Class Size” in Chinese Elementary Schools and Analysis of Policy Factors

2014· article· en· W1857774984 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xingping Zhou, Yan Hu, Xuan He

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in sociology of science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass sizeYearbookClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationChinaPrimary educationDistribution (mathematics)SociologyGeographyMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to analyze variations of “large class size” in Chinese elementary schools and the influences of education policies on it. Through SPSS21.0, Independent-Samples T Test is adopted to analyze the continuous eleven years” data in “Chinese Educational Statistics Yearbook (2001-2011)”, and the findings are as follows. Firstly, the number of “large class size” in elementary schools presents obvious variations. Secondly, the absolute number of “large class size” in elementary schools shows large fluctuations, while the proportion of “large class size” in elementary schools constantly increases. Thirdly, obvious variations appear in the spatial distribution of the number of “large class size” in elementary schools. “Large class size” in elementary schools has already transferred from urban and rural areas to counties and towns, and the number and proportion of “large class size” in elementary schools in counties and towns has exceeded the sum of that in urban and rural areas. Fourthly, variations of “large class size” in elementary schools result from “closing and merging schools” policy and “two priorities” policy in China.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.409 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in sociology of scienceSame topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207