EVIDENCE FOR EXCELLENCE IN INTERNATIONALIZATION & MOBILITY A SELF ASSESMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationalization and Mobility (I&M) has become an integrated part of engineering education, making institutions embracing it as a worthy profile in their marketing strategies. Though most areas of operation at an engineering institution are annually evaluated through systematic quality assurance, their I&M profile seldom is put under scrutiny. One reason might be that the standard for I&M insufficiently is stated through assessable outcomes and evidence. The issue of I&M has been propelled onto the agenda of CDIO and proposed at the 6 th international conference at Montreal, June 2010, as a 13th CDIO standard (Campbell, 2010).The proposal was thoroughly discussed at various meetings at the conference, in the CDIO regional groups and the CDIO council, which endorsed follow-up actions. In an effort to support the process, this paper will present a self-assessment of I&M at the School of Engineering, Jonkoping University with the ambition to formulate clearer outcomes and evidence for excellence in Internationalization and Mobility. The self-assessment will follow the general guidelines for the implementation at an institution of CDIO Standards with the involvement of all stake holders. The central question will be: What are the evidence for a good standard of internationalization at the university? Information will be taken from both undergraduate and Master students from their evaluation forms and from interviews with the personnel at the International Office and heads of departments. Research will also be made on what is written in the area of assessing Internationalization & Mobility. Clearly formulated evidence for excellence in I&M and a model of how to constructively assess it in an organization should contribute to the current discussion within the CDIO initiative.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".