Issues of Participation in a University-NGO, North-South Partnership: Internationalizing a CED Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing collaboration of universities with outside organizations in international development work has been accompanied by a number of issues and challenges, particularly in the critical area of participation and partnership. Some of these challenges are common to collaborative North-South development initiatives in general (for example, logistical difficulties, cultural differences, unequal power relations), while others are rooted in the particular values, structures, and regulations of universities and their partners (for example, systems of career advancement, grant recognition, disciplinary fragmentation, government-mandated regulations). These issues are addressed within the context of a CIDA/UPCD project to create a CED program in Mexico, involving a partnership between a Canadian public university (SFU), a Mexican private university (ITESM), and a Mexican NGO (CEDAC) oriented toward community development and poverty alleviation. Analysis and policy recommendations focus on the following issues: the need for (government) finders to encourage a more truly participatory approach to development by assuming a more flexible, less formulaic stance toward use of, and control over, financial resources between Canadian and overseas partners; and the need for universities to match their rhetoric concerning internationalization with concrete measures to add incentives and remove disincentives to the participation of academic programs and faculty in practical development initiatives.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".