Global Citizenship: Extending Students' Knowledge and Action to the Global Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young adults living outside the U.S. tend to be more globally aware than most young adults living in the U.S. A representative poll of 18-24 year-olds indicated that U.S. residents of this age group have considerably less knowledge about international issues and geography in comparison to their counterparts living in other countries (i.e., Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, Italy, and Sweden) (National Geographic, 2002). The poll found that in comparison to their international counterparts, U.S. young adults scored far worse in locating countries on a map. For example, only 42 percent of U.S. 18-24 year-olds was able to locate Japan compared to 69 percent of 18-24 year-olds from other countries. This poll also reported that only 13 percent of U.S. young adults correctly located Iraq on a map while over double the number (34 percent) correctly indicated that that the reality television show, "Survivor," was located in the South Pacific. For the most part, young adults in the U.S. may know a good deal about domestic politics, issues, and culture, but know far less about the perspectives of (much less the location of) other countries. This U.S.-centric focus is perhaps well reflected in the same poll that also found nearly one-third of young adults in the U.S. think that the U.S. population is between 1 and 2 billion, mistakenly supposing that the U.S. constitutes nearly one-third of the world's population. Such results are disconcerting and indicate the lack of global perspective among young adults in the U.S.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".