Organización y funcionamiento de las redes de cooperación interuniversitaria: una mirada comparada entre Argentina y Canadá
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inter-university cooperation includes\ndifferent\narticulation's\nmechanisms between\nuniversities, placing organizational\nparticularities\nfor joint work, which are configured\ninto Higher Education. This link\nbetween\ndiverse\nuniversities is immersed in the process\nof internationalization of higher education, whose characteristics are show\nin the implementation of reticulations associated with the academic exchange, international\nstudent mobility, and generation of science, technology and innovation, among others.\nAccordingly,\nthis paper analyzes, through a comparative study, the characteristics of two\norganizations that promote the creation of networks for inter-university cooperation,\nnamely: the Red de Cooperación Internacional de las Universidades Nacionales de\nArgentina (RedCIUN), and the network of Association of Universities and Colleges of\nCanada (AUCCC).\nAlthough the trajectory of both networks is part of\nthe context where\nthey are, these\ninstituted a\nparticular\nway to coordinate activities related\nwith the\nnetwork organization\nand inter-university cooperation, which is relevant to the\ncomparative process. Consequently, this paper is structured into two parts; at the first is\ndone a description and a contextualization the higher education systems of Argentina\nand Canada and we are also addressed the networks of inter-university cooperation that\nwere selected as case studies of each country. Then, at the second part is continued\nreflecting comparatively about of\ndata obtained for discussing them.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".