Internationalization or International Marketing? Two Frameworks for Understanding International Students' Choice of Canadian Universities
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
This paper discusses two important concepts—internationalization and the international marketing of higher education—and how they influence international students' choice of Canadian universities. The paper is based on two studies: one on 140 East Asian international graduate students who enrolled at two large Ontario universities in the academic year 2003--2004, and the other on 95 international undergraduate students who enrolled at an Ontario university in academic year 2005--2006. The research findings show that market segmentation determines the applicability of internationalization and/or marketing of higher education. Activities related to the internationalization of education play a critical role in influencing the research-oriented students' choice of a Canadian graduate school. Marketing activities have a direct impact on graduate students' choice in professional programs. “Twinning” or “incountry” programs—a blend of internationalization and international marketing approach—have a strong influence on undergraduate students' choice to come to Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it