The Issue of Mutuality in Canada-China Educational Collaboration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the power relationships in two major Canada-China university linkage programs which ran between 1989 and 2001: the Canada-China University Linkage Program [CCULP] (1989-1995) and the Special University Linkage Consolidation Program [SULCP] (1996-2001). The study adopts the cosmopolitan concept of mutuality as a theoretical lens and employs the analytical method of constant comparison of qualitative data to explore the context surrounding the mutuality evidenced in CCULP/SULCP. The findings show that both programs manifested the four characteristics of mutuality identified by Johan Galtung: equity, autonomy, solidarity and participation. Human values or cultural agency were identified as the key factor making mutuality possible, as well as nurturing and sustaining the relationships between Canadian and Chinese participants. This study suggests that cosmopolitanism be given more attention in this increasingly interconnected world. Its primary emphasis is on human relationships, and this dimension needs to be given more space in international academic relations.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it