International University Partnerships in Contemporary Cambodian Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the issue of power relationships in international partnership programs between Cambodian universities and universities in France, the United States, Japan and South Korea, two decades after Cambodia began to be reintegrated into the regional and international communities in the early 1990s. In particular, it examines how far each of the four cases is characterized by mutuality. The cosmopolitan concept of mutuality - made up of equity, autonomy, solidarity and participation - is adopted as the theoretical framework. The study follows a qualitative case study research design, with interviews as the primary method of data collection. The findings have revealed that although in decline in recent years, French-Cambodian university partnerships over the last two decades have been supported by the French government, whose primary purpose is to promote French culture and language in Cambodia. American-Cambodian university partnerships have taken place on a relatively small scale, with modest support from American aid agencies. Clearly, the US has shown limited interest in Cambodia, other than spreading such concepts as liberal democracy and neo-liberalism in the country. Cambodian university partnerships with Japanese and Korean universities have recently expanded and have been seen to be tied to the increased economic activities of both countries in Cambodia. Most international partnerships between Cambodian universities and their French, American and Japanese counterparts manifested each aspect of mutuality to some degree. In those programs, academicians from both sides had already built close relationships with each other before moving to establish a formal institutional agreement. By comparison, the degree of mutuality varied among Cambodian-Korean university partnerships, mostly newly established with few prior people-initiated connections. The findings suggest not only the greater maturity in the international experience of French, American and Japanese universities, as opposed to South Korean universities, but also the significant role of human agency and culture in international academic activities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".