China’s Humanistic Zhong-Yong Approach to Educational Partnerships for International Development in Post-Covid-19: Confucian and Ubuntu Perspectives on Confucius Institutes and Classrooms in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on broad observations of the development of Confucius Institutes and Classrooms in Africa over a decade, this article focuses on educational partnerships between Chinese and African educational institutions and their implications for international development, as they relate to international development in the era of post-Covid-19. The author identifies the Confucian Zhong-Yong approach to educational partnerships through Confucius Institutes and Classrooms in Africa, a pragmatic model for educational development centered on Confucianism. Three core characteristics of Confucian educational partnerships – demand-driven, ethics-based and pragmatic – are seen as the key to the success of such partnerships. Reflecting on Ubuntu from a Confucian perspective, the author concludes that China’s humanistic Zhong-Yong approach to partnerships has a unique potential to re-envision education for international development in ways that may be of interest to such international developmental agencies as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the World Bank, and the United Nations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".