MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009563594 · doi:10.5539/ass.v7n12p253

An Analysis of the Phenomenon of Global “Mandarin Fever”

2011· article· en· W2009563594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hong Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandarin ChineseConnotationChinese as a foreign languageChinaPhenomenonPrideFace (sociological concept)Chinese cultureChinese languageForeign languagePolitical scienceLinguisticsSociologyHistoryPsychologyPedagogySocial scienceLawEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the time being, “Mandarin fever” has been warming up persistently. This article analyzes that the root cause for this phenomenon lies in the daily mightiness of China and distinctive charm of Chinese culture. At the time when we take the pride, we also have to calm down to face up with the fact and make reflections. On one hand, we should try to make a good job of economic construction in a down-to-earth manner, continue to enhance the comprehensive national strength of our country and further reinforce military and scientific strength. On the other hand, we should continuously improve quality of teaching Chinese a foreign language and connotation of teaching Chinese as a foreign language and strengthen competitive force of “Confucius Institute” as a primary channel for teaching Chinese as a foreign language. It is necessary to carry forward Chinese culture, manifest quintessence of Chinese culture and enable Chinese to become one of the languages that people from all over the world show favor for in their communication.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207