Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poucos questionariam o cenário desafiador da educação superior internacional, pesquisa e inovação (international higher education, research and innovation, IHERI) ou a crescente complexidade e interconectividade das relações entre os países. Contudo, paradoxalmente, há uma ausência de pesquisas sobre a intercessão destes dois fenômenos em evolução. Este artigo pretende abordar este tema, propondo o conceito de diplomacia do conhecimento ao invés do de soft power para entender o papel da IHERI na construção de relações baseadas em colaboração, reciprocidade e mutualidade de benefícios. Uma definição e um quadro conceitual da diplomacia do conhecimento são propostos e detalhados. Três iniciativas de IHERI– a Pan African University, a German Jordanian University e RENKEI – uma rede de pesquisa entre universidades japonesas e do Reino Unido – são examinadas para ilustrar como elementos e princípios fundamentais do quadro da diplomacia do conhecimento podem ser aplicados. O artigo finaliza questionando o futuro da diplomacia do conhecimento e a necessidade de outras pesquisas.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".