Ideal Types and Ideal(ized) students in Internationalized Post-secondary Pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the relevance of Weber’s sociocultural concept of ideal types in the context of modern Canadian post-secondary education. Ideal types are simplified or distilled representations of socio-cultural values, with relevance to various social (Prandy, 2002) and educational (Hayhoe, 2007; Hayhoe & Li, 2017; Wong & Chiu, 2021) analyses. This article builds upon Hayhoe and Li’s (2007) comparison of Confucian and Western ideal types, focusing on implications for internationalized education and implicit values within. The article explores the caveats of reductive thinking regarding cultures, particularly considering culture as a proxy for race where values differ. It revisits research exploring Western students studying in an East Asian context and East Asian students studying in a Western context (Chen, 2014; Maton & Chen, 2020), using ideal types as an analytical lens for underlying values and gaps in expectations. Specifically, it considers the pedagogical implications of the differing educational cultures and values as represented by Western and Confucian ideal types, and how a broader appreciation might supplement teaching approaches founded on either type to be more inclusive and beneficial for the various learners in Canadian higher education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".