The Issue of Mutuality in Canada-China Educational Collaboration
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".