MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413192206

Chinese Culture Overseas Exchange and Spread Under the Context of Cross- Cultural Perspective

2016· article· en· W2413192206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Songjie Li, Xinghua Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaCivilizationChinese cultureSymbol (formal)Government (linguistics)Soft powerCultural communicationPosition (finance)Context (archaeology)Political scienceSociologyBusinessGeographyCommunicationLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid development of economy and the rise of international politics caused the “China craze” of the international community, and is also an opportunity to spread Chinese culture overseas. Chinese culture has long been in the passive position of “the other construction”, the communication mode will make China lose the ownership of cultural exchange, and then make the culture in the “edge” status. In cross-cultural communication, how to play the government power, through the artifacts, the media and non-governmental organizations to build a complete system of cultural transmission, cultural communication to realize the rationality and validity, give play to its dominant position in Chinese cultural exchange, get the real “image of China” and “voice of China”, is the main direction of the current Chinese culture propagation. Actively integrating into the world culture system, to realize the combination of Chinese culture and the world civilization, not only is the symbol of country cultural confidence and expression, and contribute to world peace and cultural 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207