What makes a “distinguished global scholar” in global education? : (Trans)formative experiences toward global mindedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having an international experience, often through study abroad, has been a consistent theme in global education. There are a multitude of research studies on how international experiences foster global mindedness. In these studies, it is common for researchers to ask participants to reflect on their international experiences. In contrast, we took an alternative and slightly experimental qualitative approach to dig into the processes of becoming globally minded. Using existing and documented narratives as data, we examined the life-long learning processes of thirteen “distinguished global scholars.” Our study illuminates the (trans)formative experiences that contributed to their global mindedness. Four common themes emerged from our analysis: (1) Experiencing war and/or political tension; (2) Encountering social injustice; (3) Engaging with socio-cultural difference; and (4) Leaving the familiar / reaching out to the unknown. The findings and discussion deepen the understanding of how global mindedness is developed and offers insights for educational interventions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".