MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060729468 · doi:10.5539/ies.v3n2p27

Reflections on the Internationalization of Higher Education in Jiangxi

2010· article· en· W2060729468 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hongyuan Fang, Hongmin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHigher Education and Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternationalizationOrder (exchange)Internationalization of Higher EducationHigher educationSortingScale (ratio)Quality (philosophy)BusinessEconomic growthPolitical sciencePublic relationsEconomic systemInternational tradeEconomicsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The internationalization of higher education in Jiangxi Province is not only the internal requirement of the development of higher education but the actual demands of Jiangxi’s economic development. However, quite a few problems are hindering it, such as laggard ideas about education internationalization, low level of staff internationalization, dissatisfying overseas enrollment, poor international cooperation in running schools, small scale of the international exchanges of information and so on. As a result, in order to promote the internationalization of Jiangxi’s higher education, some countermeasures should be taken: enhancing understanding, updating ideas and accelerating relevant projects; sorting out relations and perfecting systems according to actual demands; confirming objectives, giving guidance according to different types and developing individuality; improving teaching quality and developing programs; expanding channels and creating conditions in accordance with local conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.393 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicHigher Education and Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207