MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233240224 · doi:10.1163/25902539-00102006

Editorial

2019· editorial· en· W4233240224 on OpenAlexaff
Jun

Bibliographic record

VenueBeijing international review of education · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaBeijingCurriculumEducation policyVocational educationPolitical sciencePedagogyInternationalizationComparative educationCorporate governanceSociologyHigher educationManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With increasing re-recognition in recent years, education in China has drawn more and more global attention.China Watch is a signature column of Beijing International Review of Education, aiming at updating international communities with the latest policy move and practice improvement of education in China, featured with short articles around 2,500 words each.Topics of China Watch include but are not limited to learning, teaching or schooling; governance, leadership or planning in education; evaluation or assessment; teacher education; moral or citizenship education; language education; stem education; inclusive education; girls (women) education; vocational education; educational finance; privatization; or internationalization of education, etc., ranging from early childhood, basic to post-secondary education, from life-long to life-wide education, and/or from educational theory to practical innovation.China Watch in this issue focuses on recent curriculum reform in China, one on science in elementary schools and another on new curricular standards in senior higher schools.Articles in this signature column usually include three core components: (1) abstract; (2) an introduction about an enduring or emergent policy or practice of education in China, and; (3) a disciplinary or interdisciplinary analysis about it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeijing international review of educationSame topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207