Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationalization has transformed higher education institutions and systems but there is much confusion as to what an international, binational, transnational, cosmopolitan, multinational, or global university actually means. There is no standardized model for an international university, nor should there be, but a deeper understanding of different types of international institutions is necessary. This article examines key characteristics of three generic models or generations of international universities. The classic model or first generation is an internationalized university with a diversity of international partnerships, international students and staff, and multiple international and intercultural collaborative activities at home and abroad. This is the most common model. The second generation is called the satellite model, which includes universities with satellite offices around the world in the form of branch campuses, research centers, and management/contact offices. Internationally co-founded universities constitute the third and most recent generation of international universities. These are stand-alone institutions co-founded or co-developed by two or more partner institutions from different countries. This article elaborates on the three models, provides examples of international co-founded institutions, identifies a number of issues and challenges, and poses the question as to what the next model of international universities might look like.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.261 | 0.100 |
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".