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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
近年來，大學校院整併已經成為熱門話題。誠言，大學合併或整併不單流行於台灣，自六七十年代伊始，英國、美國、挪威、瑞典、德國、加拿大，及至荷蘭等地也有不同形式的大學「整併」，試圖透過大學整合來提升大學營運的成本效益和增強大學綜合競爭力。近在咫尺的中國大陸，近年也興起大學合併和轉制等改革。八十年代以還，規模日益膨脹的中國大陸高等教育亦要面對嚴峻的財政資源不足的問題，因此，在高等教育體制內進行結構與管理體制改革的重點便是要院校在運用有限資源的同時能提高辦學效益。與此同時，大陸中央政府亦注意到高等教育體系所面對的教育質素、資源調配及管理效益等方面的問題。在全面推行教育改革之際，尤其始於1990年代，大陸中央政府更積極倡導以大學整併的方式來提高院校的資源與管理效益，透過「共建、劃轉、合併、合作」四種主要形式來進行高等教育管理體制的改革。本文旨在探討中國大陸大學整併的推行背景、整併的形式和策略，並分析高等院校整併後對大陸高等教育治理型模的變遷 (changing education governance)，以及討論大學整併對高等教育長遠發展的影響。\nUniversity merging has become increasingly popular across different parts of the globe. Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Canada and Holland have adopted different strategies along the lines of university merging to strengthen their higher education systems. In recent years, the Chinese government has adopted different strategies of university merging to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of higher education systems in mainland China. This paper identifies, examines and discusses issues related to structural adjustment and educational restructuring in China, with particular reference to university merging and changes in higher education governance models. University merging in China should not be simply understood as a pure higher education reform but rather a fundamental change in higher education governance model from an “interventionist state model” to an “accelerationist state model”.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it