MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498265834 · doi:10.5206/cie-eci.v45i1.9281

Towards Different Conversations About the Internationalization of Higher Education

2016· article· en· W2498265834 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti, Judy Bruce, Rene Suša

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative and International Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsInternationalizationCognitive reframingMainstreamArticulation (sociology)HumanitySociologyHigher educationThe ImaginaryPolitical scienceInstitutionAotearoaHierarchyPublic relationsSocial sciencePoliticsPsychologyGender studiesSocial psychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As institutional commitments to internationalize higher education continue to grow, so too does the need to critically consider both the intended purposes and actual outcomes of the programs and policies that result. In particular, there is a risk that internationalization efforts may contribute to the reproduction of harmful historical and ongoing global patterns of educational engagement. In this paper we explore these issues by offering a social cartography of four possible articulations of internationalization, and considering their relation to an often-unacknowledged global imaginary, which presumes a colonial hierarchy of humanity. We also address the practical and pedagogical possibilities and limitations of enacting each articulation within mainstream institutional settings, and propose that social cartographies offer a means of reframing and deepening engagement with the complexities, tensions, and paradoxes involved in internationalizing higher education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0190.095
Scholarly communication0.0260.028
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0070.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative and International EducationSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207