Revisiting my journey to a critical sociology of Chinese education through Bourdieu’s bequest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transmission and transformation of dispositions and capitals across generations and geographies is an enigmatic problem. Concomitant with this problem are challenges of disparity and diversity, of distinction and discrimination, of parity and partiality, and of prerogatives and pejoratives. In an educational context, these challenges are indeed real and persistent. To take up the challenges, I often have recourse to Bourdieu’s relational, reflexive sociology to ponder over power, politics, and participation in education and socialisation. To realise the full value of the epistemic tools bequeathed by Bourdieu, I employ ‘field analysis’ and ‘participant objectivation’ to sociologise myself. Over the years, I have studied and worked, transnationally, in different sociocultural and geopolitical contexts of China, Canada, and Australia. My dispositions and positions have changed, but one thing remains constant: I am Chinese by birth. Such a biological fact and a cultural heritage, and sometimes a political stance, consciously or unconsciously, come to shape my academic habitus – a habitus that manoeuvres my scholastic and social engagement with Chinese young people struggling to survive and thrive in transborder or/and transcultural contexts. Diasporic Chinese constitute one group of these young people and floating children and left-behind children constitute another. In this essay, I introduce to the reader my books about these young people. I also take advantage of this introduction to revisit my journey to a critical sociology of Chinese education through Bourdieu’s bequest.
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 | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".