A Comparative Study on the Foreign Language Education Policies of China and Other Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that at present the study of foreign languages education policy is not deep enough. But at the same time，it is of great benefit for Chinese government to adapt to foreign languages education policy; to localize the foreign experiences; to regulate foreign languages teaching from the perspective of strategy. Some problems are pointed out when the government is making the foreign languages education policy. Key words: China and Other countries' foreign language teaching; Education policy; Comparative study Resume: Cet article montre qu'a l'heure actuelle l'etude sur la politique de l'enseignement des langues etrangeres n'est pas assez profonde. Mais en meme temps, il est d'une grande utilite pour le gouvernement chinois de s'adapter a la politique de l'enseignement des langues etrangeres; de localiser les experiences etrangeres; de reglementer l'enseignement des langues etrangeres dans une perspective strategique. Certains problemes sont mis en evidence lorsque le gouvernement etablit la politique de l'enseignement des langues etrangeres. Mots-cles: enseignement de langues etrangeres en Chine et dans d'autres pays; politique de l'education; etude comparative
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".