Globalizing 'Global Studies': Vehicle for Disciplinary and Regional Bridges?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most contentious and critical questions of contemporary times relate to the nature, scope, impact and conceptualization of globalization. The intensified impact of globalization and the acceptance that it is a contemporary social reality has manifested itself noticeably in a variety of disciplines. However, the inherently multidimensional processes of globalization demand new insights. The resultant rise of a Global Studies approach is expected to be unencumbered by dominant perspectives and existing academic loyalties by placing global theorizing and issues first. In light of this context, the paper raises several epistemological and ontological questions while outlining the broad contours of this emerging field. The analysis is based on academic literature as well as the examination of a selection of global studies programs in academic institutions to ascertain the contemporary application and perceptions of what constitutes global studies. The ensuing discussion explains why global studies is regarded as an overwhelmingly North American phenomenon. Finally, the paper suggests ways of broadening the disciplinary lens, which may also help global studies to overcome the wide regional divide.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".