A Critical Discourse Analysis of the University of Ottawa's Internationalization Strategy Report from a Third World Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a critical analysis of the Internationalization Strategy Report of the University of Ottawa, according to the Third World Approach to International Law (TWAIL) methodology. It argues that the Strategy silences global unevenness, avoids any pedagogical discussion, and reproduces the neoliberal rationality about globalization in its discourse. Also, the liberal multiculturalism evoked in the Strategy hinders the incorporation of marginal cultural narratives, and it is driven by the promotion of economic assets for the university. As the internationalization of the curriculum is not prioritized, the Strategy Report does not consider the reproduction of developed countries' academic canons and the obstacles to the incorporation of knowledge produced in Third World countries. This indicates no concern with the prevalence of a neocolonial bias. Alternatives to balance this situation are offered, such as administrative recommendations, the strengthening of the public debate, and the attention to diversity as a criterion for research funding.
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 | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".