MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750038434 · doi:10.3968/9766

Case Studies on the Confucius Institute Management System

2017· article· en· W2750038434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shen Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHigher Education and Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Political sciencePunishment (psychology)ManagementSociologyBusinessPublic relationsEconomicsPsychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Confucius Institutes have become important institutions and channels for promoting Chinese language and culture internationally. With the establishment of 500 Confucius Institutes around the world, however, many problems are emerging, which need to be considered. There are major defects in the management of Confucius Institutes, which are manifested as follows: a) The Confucius Institute Headquarters (Hanban) has granted too much authority to the Confucius Institute management offices of Chinese universities, while lacking supervision and punishment mechanisms; b) Hanban fails to give powerful support to Chinese and host-country directors in a weak position and the restraints on directors in a strong position are insufficient; c) Some heads of Confucius Institute offices conspire with Chinese directors in a strong position to use the resources of Confucius Institutes to pursue their personal gains; and d) Some heads of Confucius Institute offices conspire with host-country directors in a strong position to make Chinese directors mere figureheads. Based on case studies, the paper analyzes the above problems and proposes measures to improve the Confucius Institute management system.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.390
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicHigher Education and Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207