MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908674930 · doi:10.1080/0161956x.2018.1515835

“Walking the Talk”: A Conceptualization of International Mindedness to Inform Leadership in International Schools

2018· article· en· W2908674930 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Tarc

Bibliographic record

VenuePeabody Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationAnecdoteSociologyCurriculumMindsetPedagogyPower (physics)EpistemologySubjectivityInternational educationHigher educationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many of the most highly regarded international schools, international mindedness (IM) represents an overarching value orientation and a “mindset” to be developed in students. Over the last 2 decades, there has been increasing attention to both understanding and supporting IM in the explicit and formal curriculum in international schools; however, the theorization of the more implicit or hidden curriculum of international schools has been much less engaged. This article presents a broad conceptualization of IM from a synthesis of the most recent IM literature and, more specifically, digs deeper into the implicit forms of learning and subjectivity via a “post-informed” analysis of a critical anecdote of international school teaching. The article seeks to inform leaders of how they might more robustly understand IM and work to walk the talk of IM through a more open embrace of human difference and cultural conflict under complex, power-laden, and sometimes fraught social relations.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.048
Scholarly communication0.0100.014
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.007
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeabody Journal of EducationSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207