MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107728770 · doi:10.3968/7561

The Exercise of Power: Analysis of the Role of China English in Cross-Cultural Communication

2015· article· en· W2107728770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bingtian Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaSoft powerChinese cultureCross-cultural communicationPower (physics)Political scienceInternational communicationGlobalizationPromotion (chess)Cultural communicationLingua francaNormativeSociologyLinguisticsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The globalization of English has caused its localization. With normative English at the core, China English is used to express the unique things of Chinese society and culture. The influence of the Chinese language in the world is still very limited. Thus, the use of China English is the inevitable choice to strengthen China’s foreign exchange and communication with different cultures. Since English is the lingua franca of today’s world, the English-speaking countries, as the case stands, are in control of the discourse power in the international exchanges, which has resulted in the inequalities in the cross-cultural communication practices between the English-speaking countries and non-English-speaking countries. The promotion and use of China English are of great strategic significance to ensure the security of Chinese national culture, highlight the cultural discourse power of China and carry out the external dissemination of Chinese culture.

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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207