MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Internationalization Through NNES Student Recruitment

2020· book-chapter· en· W3084886749 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anouchka Plumb

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in higher education and professional development book series · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternationalizationCompetition (biology)IdeologyDECIPHERPolitical scienceInternationalization of Higher EducationPublic relationsRevenueSociologyBusinessPoliticsInternational tradeBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It can be difficult to decipher the extent to which Canadian university internationalization efforts have been corralled to actualize mostly through non-native English speaking (NNES) foreign student recruitment. Although international surveys often report that an overwhelming majority of foreign students endorse Canada as a study destination and are satisfied with their Canadian study experience, the voices of students who experience a different reality are often overlooked. This chapter begins with an overview of internationalization values. The author then reviews the ways in which neoliberal ideology reshapes higher education as a good and places NNES foreign students as consumers in competition. Next, the foreign student recruitment is aligned with the internationalization rationales of generating revenue and migrating skills to benefit Canada's national economy. The reported realities of NNES foreign students are shared, followed by questions to springboard dialogue on identifying and mitigating gaps for NNES foreign student university study on Canadian campuses.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.017

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in higher education and professional development book seriesSame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207