MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413134181 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n3p321

Educational Management Strategies for Preserving Chinese Traditional Music Among Undergraduate Students

2025· article· en· W4413134181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
He Lu, Phatchareephorn Bangkheow, Phisanu Bangkheow, Narongwat Mingmit

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptabilityGeneral partnershipCurriculumMedical educationMathematics educationPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyPolitical scienceManagementMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research focused on educational management strategies for preserving Chinese traditional music among undergraduate students. The research aimed to study the current conditions and desired conditions for preserving Chinese traditional music among undergraduate students, formulate educational management strategies for preserving Chinese traditional music among undergraduate students and evaluate the feasibility and adaptability of educational management strategies for preserving Chinese traditional music among undergraduate students. Five representative universities were selected as research objects. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was adopted, including questionnaire, interview, and evaluation form, to comprehensively analyze the current conditions and desired conditions for preserving Chinese traditional music among undergraduate students. Based on this, researchers formulated and proposed educational management strategies and evaluated the feasibility and adaptability of the strategies. The strategies included optimizing curriculum, strengthening faculty development, stimulating student engagement, upgrading digital infrastructure, expanding community partnership, refining policy and evaluation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207