Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter reflects on Comparative Education and Comparative Higher Education in relation to the emergence of a Dialogue among Civilizations in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War. It challenges the domination of Western-derived theories, whether those of modernization or Marxism, and reflects on the enrichment that can be found through an embrace of dialogue with other world civilizations. It suggests a value explicit approach to comparative education research, drawing on the vision of scholars such as Ali Mazrui and Rajni Kothari who had their roots in Asian and African civilizations and founded the World Order Models Project in the 1970s. They put forward the idea of envisioning a preferred future based on the values of equity, autonomy, participation, and solidarity. This approach made possible a frame for evaluating educational interactions across countries and regions. It also anticipated the recognition of the continuing importance of religion that emerged as part of the dialogue among civilizations. Putting values and religion at the heart of future research should facilitate conflict resolution and ensure that our younger generations are nurtured as citizens to serve the public good in a global knowledge society rather than being narrowly shaped for individual and national competitiveness in a global knowledge economy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".