A Comparative Study on Power Game Models of Government and Universities between China and Foreign Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis firstly analyzed some major characteristics of power game models between government and uni- versities in such western countries as Canada and USA etc.,then the author probed into the features and their e- volved manners of power game models in great detail between Chinese government and universities during the trans- forming stage(since 1978).The author believe that there are four models of power game between government and universities in Western countries,which are university self-running,university dominating,government dominating and government despotism,and thereinto the university self-running model was mainly found in the middle and ana- phase stages of European Middle Ages and the government despotism model has appeared in a very few of countries since the end of 19st century,but at present most Western countries are carrying out the model of university domi- nating or government dominating.The power game model of Chinese government and universities was government despotism from 1949 till 1992,but it has been transformed gradually into government dominating since 1993.Final- ly,the author brought forward an assumption to reconstruct the new power game model between Chinese government and universities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".