«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

清华大学教育研究[ISSN:1001-4519/CN:11-1610/G4]

卷:

期数:

2026年02期

页码:

55-67

栏目:

世界一流大学

出版日期:

2026-04-20

文章信息/Info

Title:

How Do the Second Round of Double First-Class Universities Carry Out Construction? A Policy Instrument Analysis Based on Large Language Models

作者:

王传毅¹ 林洺桐¹ 辜刘建²

1. 清华大学 教育学院；2. 复旦大学 高等教育研究所

Author(s):

WANG Chuan-yi¹ LIN Ming-tong¹ GU Liu-jian²

1. School of Education, Tsinghua University;2. Institute of Higher Education, Fudan University

关键词:

“双一流”建设; 政策工具; 大语言模型; 建设方案

Keywords:

Double First-Class Initiative;  policy instruments;  large language models;  construction plan

分类号:

G649.2

DOI:

10.14138/j.1001-4519.2026.02.005512

文献标志码:

A

摘要:

本研究拓展了麦克唐纳（McDonnell）和埃尔莫尔（Elmore）的政策工具分类方法，构建了系统化、细化且具有可操作性的“五型十类”政策工具分类框架。采用BERT大语言模型对高校开展“双一流”建设的政策工具进行编码，识别政策工具类型、数量和使用方式，并进行历时性对比分析。研究发现：第二轮“双一流”建设高校主要采用事前要求型、能力增强型、制度建设型、信号型和规劝型政策工具，较少使用事后监管型、正向和负向激励型、机制改革型和权力重组型政策工具，政策工具呈现多元配置特征。相较于第一轮建设，第二轮“双一流”建设高校的能力增强型、制度建设型政策工具仍然较高，同时更加重视信号型政策工具的使用，负向激励型政策工具虽小幅提高但整体占比仍然偏低。基于上述发现，建议未来进一步优化政策工具使用，更好发挥激励型工具引导高校服务国家战略急需领域的导向作用，同时进一步以系统变革型工具对制约“双一流”高校高质量发展的深层次问题开展治理，进一步提升“双一流”建设的政策实效。

Abstract:

This study extends the policy instrument typology proposed by McDonnell and Elmore and develops a systematic, refined, and operational five-type and ten-category framework for classifying policy instruments. Using the BERT large language model to code the policy instruments employed in China’s Double First-Class universities, this study identifies the types, frequencies, and modes of use of policy instruments and conducts a diachronic comparative analysis. The ?ndings show that universities in the second round of the Double First-Class initiative primarily relied on pre-requirement, capacity-enhancing, institutional construction,signaling and hortatory policy instruments, while post-event supervision, positive and negative incentive,institutional reform and power reorganization instruments were used relatively infrequently, indicating a diversi?ed pattern of policy instrument con?guration. Compared with the ?rst round, the second round placed greater emphasis on capacity-enhancing, institutional construction and hortatory instruments. Although the use of negative incentive instruments increased slightly, their overall share remained low. Based on these ?ndings,this study suggests that future policy design should further optimize the combination of policy instruments,strengthen the guiding role of incentive instruments in steering universities toward national strategic priority areas, and employ system-changing instruments more effectively to address the deep-seated constraints on the high-quality development of Double First-Class universities, thereby enhancing the policy effectiveness of the initiative.

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2026-04-20