MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285818209 · doi:10.2991/assehr.k.220704.205

The Impact of the Double Reduction Policy on the Development of Quality-oriented Education

2022· article· en· W4285818209 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Equity (law)Reduction (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)Education policyComputer sciencePolitical scienceHigher educationEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Double Reduction Policy is a policy document proposed by the Chinese government in 2021 to reduce students' academic burden, and its proposed regulations have had a great impact on the development of the quality-oriented (QOE) education. However, due to the short time of the policy proposal from the current time point, there is little comprehensive analysis of the impact on quality education under the Double Reduction Policy. This paper explores the impact of the double reduction background on quality education and discusses its opportunities and challenges. This paper reviewed 9 articles from CNKI and Google Scholar. The Double Reduction has a great improvement on the ecosystem of in-school and out-of-school, but it also comes with the problems of uneven distribution of resources and equity.

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.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0310.026
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.546
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