An examination of policy in practice: a case study of inclusionary internationalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the perceptions of institutional practices and practices to nurture greater cross-cultural learning and inclusion by highlighting findings from an in-depth qualitative case study conducted at a prominent Canadian research university with a stellar reputation for recruiting and providing an inclusive environment for international students. Using a conceptual framework drawn from institutional diversity theory, this study examines perceptions by students, faculty, and staff of institutional practices and strategies aimed at nurturing inclusion for international students in order to glean insight about whether this institution is perceived to embody its espoused value of inclusive internationalization. The findings demonstrate that when internationalization is upheld as a core value of an institution, that value can be witnessed in the artefacts and rhetoric of an institution. While the rhetoric may influence the creation of additional services to support international students and faculty, it is limiting in its ability to produce inclusive environments, especially for populations of colour. The implications of these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.037 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| 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".