Policy mobilities in the race for talent: competitive state strategies in international student mobility
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
Abstract In the first decade of the 21st century, several countries introduced a series of strikingly similar international student mobility policies and initiatives. Driven by a desire to expand their international student market share and to benefit from the potential contributions that international students can make to national innovation agendas, comparable policy tools were introduced in multiple states across the fields of international trade, higher education and immigration. This paper challenges depictions of these changes as a natural evolution of economic globalisation and draws on the policy mobility literature to interrogate the why and the how of the policymaking process. Drawing on research with policymakers, the paper comparatively examines the introduction of international student policies and initiatives in Canada and the UK from 2000 to 2010, and illustrates that the policy development path is the result of a competitive process wherein certain policy ideas become popular and travel, or become mobile. In so doing, I draw attention to the relationship between international student mobility, changing geographies of higher education and global knowledge economy discourses, highlighting the interconnected nature of the policy sphere as competitor jurisdictions seek to outdo each other in their attempt to attract and retain international students.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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