MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026393625 · doi:10.1108/aeds-02-2014-0005

Link education to industrial upgrading: a comparison between South Korea and China

2015· article· en· W2026393625 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Education and Development Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Industrial and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityChinaBenchmarkingEconomic growthGovernment (linguistics)Human capitalValue (mathematics)Human resourcesBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceRegional scienceMarketingSociologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – Why is the “education to industrial innovation” equation not working in China? Why has education development contributed to South Korea’s success but not promoted technology development and industrial upgrading in China? The purpose of this paper is to compare South Korea and China and try to address that puzzle. The author will also identify which mediating factors are crucial in linking education development to industrial innovation and industrial upgrading. Design/methodology/approach – This study will use the historical comparative method to compare South Korea and China. The author will try to explore the differences in education and industrial upgrading in the two countries, and identify which factors are producing different educational development effects, mainly by narrative comparison. Data will mainly come from online databases such as Statistics Korea, the Center on International Education Benchmarking, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, China Education Statistics and the World Bank, as well as from second-hand resources. Findings – In summary, this research has revealed that education itself or the production of human capital may not be sufficient conditions for technology innovation or industry upgrading. For human capital to affect industrial upgrading positively, it is not enough for the Chinese government just to invest in education. Other intermediating market and social contexts are crucial too, especially the allocation of resources between the private and the public sectors, and the existence of a proper employment structure. Originality/value – The role of education in economic development for the developing world is debated a lot. However, there is little development study research which directly explores the relationship between education and industrial upgrading via macroeconomic analysis. In a globalized world, the situation of international industrial value chains is an important element for sustainable long-term development. Industrial structures and their transformation are becoming more and more important for developing countries. While most past research has treated the absorbing economy’s structure as a condition that determines education’s contribution to development, this paper will treat the industrial structure as the dependent variable, and analyze how education would contribute to the upgrading of industrial structure and, in turn, be of benefit to sustainable economic development.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.189 · 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