MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Russian geological education in the world market (the case of Russian State Geological Prospecting University)

2016· article· en· W2593402615 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik RUDN International Relations · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFar Eastern Federal University
KeywordsPromotion (chess)State (computer science)Political scienceProspectingGeopoliticsHigher educationNatural resourceVocational educationResource (disambiguation)Sustainable developmentEconomic growthBusinessEngineeringMining engineeringPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Higher geological education in Russia and in MSGPI-RSGPU specific. It - engineering. The mineral deposits determine the development of the global industry and foreign trade. Growing global demand for the profession of geologists and mining engineers. Training of foreign students in Russia has its own geopolitical and economic importance. In Russia a strong resource-based economy. It attracts students from developing countries. MGRI-RSGPU is the leading universities training specialists for mining. The article presents data about the University and types of education. Shown scientific and educational problems in higher education. This article discusses the prospects for the promotion of Russian higher geological education at the world market of educational services. The increasing role of new scientific and technological achievements in mining, enhanced environmental as well as staff requirements is revealed. Given that the leading schools in the mining industry, in addition to Russia, are formed in Canada, Germany, USA, Australia, Great Britain, many developing countries rich in natural resources, have begun to form their own national centers for training in this area. Under such competitive conditions Russian geological education maintains its own niche. Recognition of this is the active participation of Russian universities in the creation and development of the World Forum of sustainable development of mineral universities (WFURS), described in the article. The main factors of competitiveness that led to leading positions of Russian State Geological Prospecting University in system of the Russian geological education are described. Particular attention is paid to the international activities of Russian higher educational institutions including Geological Prospecting University. The basic statistics (both in the context of the country, and in the field) of foreign undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at this university is provided. The article highlights the main problems and prospects of integration of the Russian geological education in the world market of educational services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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