Effectiveness of In-Person and Virtual International Mobility Scholars Programme on Career and Professional Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International mobility programmes, both in-person and virtual, aim to build human capital. Though there is evidence of their impact on skill development, there is scant research on career and professional benefits. Moreover, because virtual mobility is a new concept, there has been little investigation into how this mode affects the perceived benefits. Using the lens of human capital theory, this study explores outcomes of in-person and virtual mobility in the Queen Elizabeth Scholars-Advanced Scholars programme, which includes doctoral, post-doctoral and early career scholars. Through interviews with 23 scholars, we explore the perceived impact of the programme, considering mode of delivery, on the career and professional development of scholars. Despite challenges with the unexpected shift to virtual mobility during Covid-19 lockdowns, both in-person and virtual mobility scholars reported benefits to their career and professional development. These results suggest that virtual mobility may be considered as a viable option to enhance the flexibility, inclusivity, and accessibility of such programmes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it