An Analysis of the Development and Orietation of the Research in the Theory of Instruction in our Country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 20 years of the opening up and reforming, much progress has been made in the research the theory of instruction in our country, and this is mnifested mainly in the following respects: 1 ) restoring things to order and having correct ideas about instruction gradually formed; 2) emacipating the mind and introducing worthy foreign cultures; 3) carrying out theoretical explorations and discussions, and Setting out on the construction of teaching materials; 4) deepening the teaching practice and developing educational experiments; 5) the research in the theory of courses having become a new topic of general interest. But all this does not imply that the problems existent in the construction of the theory of instruction can be overlooked. In recent years, as a matter of fact, the circles of the theory of instruction in our country have already begun to retrospeCt and examine the developing problems with the theory of instruction in itself, and it is precisely the examination of these problems that betokens the joientation of developing the theory of instruction in our country: 1) to adhere to taking Marxist philosphy as the guidance to the research of the theory of instruction, still posing as a serious and arduous task; 2) to integrate the resuts of the research of the theory of instruction and change the state of slackness and out-of-orderedness; 3) to be further clear about the orientation toward the construction of the theory of instruction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".