Discussion on International Internship and Intercultural Competence from a Perspective of Higher Educational Internationalization -- A Case Study of the Program Work and Travel USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of globalization, the higher education in China is facing a hot topic that it is how to educate students with international views. The paper aims to discuss a new way to educate students with intercultural competence through international internship. Therefore, the paper firstly introduces the developmental history of international internship including the program Work and Travel USA as an important educational program of the internationalized education and multicultural education in the United States, explicates the basic definitions of intercultural competence and international internship, and relationship between international internship and intercultural competence. Finally, the author sums up the important functions of the program Work and Travel USA are of benefit to the students’ intercultural communicative skills, intercultural working experiences and intercultural understanding, so as to enhance students’ intercultural competence and cultivate students with international views. And then, the international internship will be an effective measure to educate internationalized talents in China. Key words: Higher education; Internationalization; Internship; Intercultural competence
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".