The Unintended Consequences of Relying on Economic Rationales in Canadian Internationalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores the unintended consequences of the shift to a predominantly market orientation to internationalization in Canada by asking the following questions: How might the emphasis on the economic outcomes in both policy and practice have put internationalization at risk? How are the shifting priorities in Canadian higher education juxtaposed with the economic rationales for internationalization? Will the economic focus result in internationalization being viewed as counter to current priorities that focus on social justice? The rationale for internationalization was a central debate in Canada pre-COVID as evidenced by a rise in critical scholarship that positions internationalization as driven by neoliberal agendas that are divorced from academic, social, and ethical rationales. The market orientation to internationalization was welcomed by many as the revenue generated provided much needed income to underfunded public institutions. However, this economic focus has also had the unintended consequence of diminishing the worth of internationalization beyond a revenue generation mechanism. This optic has intensified due to the pandemic halting reliance on mobility, as well as recent federal mandates for Canadian higher education to address reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples and implement equity, diversity, and inclusion action plans. The social justice foci of these initiatives are in contrast to the market orientation of internationalization. Through a review of federal policy documents, as well as the critical internationalization and global citizenship literature, this chapter explores how internationalization in Canada may require a re-orientation to remain relevant when mandates to indigenize and address equity, diversity, and inclusion issues are beginning to displace internationalization as a priority.
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 | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".