MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164084641 · doi:10.1177/10283153211016270

A Critical Perspective on Short-Term International Mobility of Faculty: An Experience from Kazakhstan

2021· article· en· W3164084641 on OpenAlexaff
Aliya Kuzhabekova, Botagoz Ispambetova, Altyn Baigazina, Jason Sparks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Studies in International Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNazarbayev University
KeywordsInternationalizationGeneral partnershipStudy abroadTRIPS architecturePhenomenonSociologyPerspective (graphical)Public relationsHigher educationPolitical scienceEconomic growthPedagogyBusinessEconomicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article looks at the relatively understudied phenomenon of short-term international mobility of faculty from the critical internationalization perspective. It uses data from interviews with academics from Kazakhstan, who participated in short-term professional development trips abroad to understand who benefits and who loses as a result of short-term faculty mobility and how the short-term international mobility may contribute to the process of reproduction of the existing social structures and inequality. Critical internationalization perspective in general, as well as mobility paradigm more specifically, helps to reveal some important insights about short-term international mobility from a non-Western country to predominantly Western institutions. The main conclusion from the study is that host university’s engagement in hosting mobile faculty coming on short visits seems to be driven predominantly by the neoliberal profit-seeking motives rather than by a more humanistic desire to serve the larger global society by sharing its expertise or to engage in equal and mutually beneficial partnership relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Studies in International EducationSame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207