Glocalization as an Alternative to Internationalization in Higher Education: Embedding Positive Glocal Learning Perspectives.
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
The notion of internationalization in higher education is understood as the recruitment of international students, marketing of academic programs and courses, and teaching English as a Second Language to student cohorts from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Various models of internationalization (Knight, 2004, 2006; Leask, 2009; Pimpa, 2009; Welikala, 2011) have been explored and promoted in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Often, as noted in the literature, these models emphasize the acculturation of international students into the host country culture rather than a respectful exchange of academic and cultural knowledge and ideas. The central thesis of this critical reflective discussion paper is that glocalization in higher education is an appropriate alternative to internationalization. Glocalization advocates a positive learning experience and encourages the enhancement of learners’ glocal experience through a critical academic and cultural exchange of global and local socio-economic and political issues. Instructional strategies supporting glocalized learning curricula are recommended. The glocalization pedagogical framework for higher education, introduced in this paper, embraces the principles of social responsibility and justice with a firm commitment to sustainable futures for local and global societies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it