A Comparative Study of Internationalization Policies in Chinese and Canadian Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although internationalization plays an increasingly important role in higher education, it has been perceived as both innovative and turbulent in the past several decades (Knight, 2008). This study explores and compares the contexts and challenges of internationalization of Chinese and Canadian higher education. By applying the “Global Higher Education Matrix” created by Jones (2008) and the “Four Approaches to Internationalization of Higher Education” (Knight, 1997; Zha, 2003) as an analytical framework, this study analyzes the different priorities of the internationalization policies implemented by global organizations, national/ federal governments, provincial governments, and institutions in Canada and China. Using a comparative policy approach, this study informs the policy and practice in the internationalization of higher education in both China and Canada. Due to the different internationalization contexts, the internationalization policies of Chinese and Canadian higher education promote different priorities on five aspects: academic mobility, cooperation and partnership, internationalizing curriculum, quality assurance, and administration and governance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".