Transnationalization and the University: The Perspective of Global Modernity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the impact of transnationalization on higher education, drawing primarily on material related to US universities. Transnationalization refers here both to the effort of universities to branch out globally, following corporate models, and to their search at home for foreign undergraduate student “consumers.” The two processes are transforming the university, with pressures to shift the context of higher education from the national to the global that have important institutional and educational consequences. Cultural globalization and the emergence of a “transnational capitalist class” offer new opportunities in the search for “paying” customers. Financial pressures at home make transnationalization almost irresistibly attractive. These forces have triggered the global expansion of elite universities and the rush of public institutions, in particular, to make themselves attractive to foreign students, hailing mostly from the wealthier classes of East and South Asia. The People’s Republic of China holds a particular fascination as a source of students, who also bring with them the promise of commercial links. Notable among accommodations of the PRC is the compliance of US institutions with officially sponsored projections of “soft power” through the so-called Confucius Institutes. The financial gain from the “education industry” has become attractive to states such as the United States, the UK, Canada, et cetera, as well as to universities. On the other hand, transnationalization challenges the local responsibilities of universities as institutions of learning intimately connected with practices of citizenship. The curricular preference of foreign students for marketable subjects also intensifies pressures to reorient university education more closely to transnational corporate needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".