MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323415956 · doi:10.1386/ctl.8.1.21_1

China's peopleship education: Conceptual issues and policy analysis

2012· article· en· W2323415956 on OpenAlexaff
Yao Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueCitizenship Teaching and Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernization theoryLegitimacyHegemonyChinaState (computer science)SociologyCommunismPoliticsMaterialismPolitical sciencePolitical economyLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes the concept of peopleship education, embodied by an analysis of four major Chinese educational policy documents since the 1990s. The Chinese 'people', different from 'citizens', are abstract, correct and materialistic. Such 'people' are produced by peopleship education, understood as state hegemony through public education to create Chinese individuals who leave the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China (CPC) unquestioned. Situated within a framework of state hegemony that consists of political socialization and depoliticization, China's peopleship education is underlined by two distinct features, i.e., historical representation and materialistic modernization. The former refers to a historical conditioning and translating of people's abstractness and correctness, via which the CPC claims its legitimacy in representing the people and the society. The latter refers to a subtle shift of power from the realm of party-state legitimacy to a limited field of modernization as economic productivity - a shift that produces a materialistic people whose interests are to be justified by economic answers rather than political ones. Implications are further discussed, regarding policy analysis in China and comparative citizenship studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.341 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCitizenship Teaching and LearningSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207