Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is one of the leading countries offering offshore schools worldwide, particularly in China. Since the 1990s, Canadian institutions have engaged in introducing curricula into China through a fast-growing provision of Canadian transnational education programs in elementary and secondary education. These endeavors create rich and meaningful intercultural encounters among schools, staff, teachers, and students. However, the research literature suggests the existence of “the local-global tensions†( Zhang, 2015 , p. 106) during the delivery of Canadian offshore schools in China. Are these tensions unresolvable? How can the local and global (the imported curriculum) interact each other? To what extent can the local and the global negotiate with each other? Is there a local-global dialectic at work while confronted with the growing interconnection between the local and global? Can we reconsider this tension between the local and the global as a site lingering between the two modes, two pedagogies (or maybe more), or two values of the educational system rather than binary opposition? Or, perhaps, is there a pedagogy in which the local and the global may address each other authentically and robustly, informing and complementing each other? Situating the phenomenon of offshore schooling within the idea of decolonized cosmopolitanism that draws on Mignolo (2010) and other scholarly works, this chapter aims to re-envision the pedagogical idea and practice of the offshore school as duopedagogy in which the local and the global (in terms of teaching and learning) interact, inform and complement each other, both being decentered and open to distinctive perspectives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".