Managing a short international study trip: the case of China
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the major planning and implementation practices that should be followed in a short term international study trip (IST). The focus throughout is on how to utilize experiential learning to establish cultural competence. Design/methodology/approach The paper shows how to plan and manage an international MBA study trip to China using a specific case to illustrate the methods employed. Findings The use of a highly structured approach to an experiential learning exercise combined with a focus on key elements of cultural competencies creates a positive environment and leads to significant focused learning. Originality/value This paper fills three key gaps in the literature. First it uniquely focuses on the implementation of a conceptual framework that incorporates the types of cultural competency related learning that are to take place. Second, it illustrates how to design and implement an IST highlighting two key aspects of experiential learning: providing challenging experiences and encouraging reflection. Third, it focuses on a trip to China which, although one of the most popular destinations for business students, is lightly reviewed in the literature. This study fills a significant gap in the literature dealing with the management of short term study trips.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it