A Critical Policy Analysis of the Implementation of the Bi-Literacy and Trilingualism Language Policy in Hong Kong: From a Postcolonial Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 1st of July, 1997, the sovereignty of Hong Kong was transferred to the People’s Republic of China and the Bi-literacy (Chinese and English) and Trilingualism (Cantonese, Mandarin, and English) Language Policy was initiated by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government in order to include Mandarin alongside English and Cantonese as the official languages of Hong Kong to be taught in the public school curriculum. However, there was much resistance to this policy and cases of discrimination against Mandarin and its speakers, even in schools, were reported. Using the framework of Contexts of Policy Making, this study examined the implementation of the Bi-literacy and Trilingualism language policy in Hong Kong. The analysis reveals that the resistance to Mandarin on the part of the populace of Hong Kong can be understood from the perspectives of postcolonialism and anti-cultural imperialism. This analysis makes a useful resource for policy makers to refine the Bi-literacy and Trilingualism Language Policy in the future.
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 | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".