MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407287541 · doi:10.5539/jel.v14n3p270

A Model of International Education Program Management: A Case Study of Sino Thai Project in Yunnan Province, China

2025· article· en· W4407287541 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuan Yao, Winai Thongpuban, Saman Asawapoom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaMathematics educationPsychologyGeographyPedagogyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to develop an innovative project management model for international education collaborations, focusing on the Sino-Thai partnership in Yunnan Province, China, which faces challenges such as cultural differences, communication barriers, and administrative discrepancies. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research integrated quantitative data from questionnaires and qualitative insights from expert focus group discussions to ensure comprehensive analysis. The proposed model comprises four key components: 1) Inputs: Institutional potentials, staff quality, educational facilities, and expenses; 2) Processes: Needs assessment, communication and collaboration, monitoring and controlling, and project review; 3) Outputs: Effective project operations, collaborative staff efforts, and project success, and 4) Feedback: A dynamic mechanism linking project outcomes to inputs for continuous improvement. The evaluation demonstrated that the model reduced communication challenges by 62% and increased stakeholder satisfaction to an average of 4.2 out of 5. Expert evaluations highlighted its practicality, with an average score of 4.5 out of 5 for suitability and utility. Unlike traditional frameworks, the model incorporates a flexible feedback loop that addresses cultural and administrative disparities, ensuring adaptability to diverse educational contexts. These findings underscore the model’s potential to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of cross-cultural educational partnerships. By bridging gaps between cultural and administrative systems, this research contributes to innovative educational practices and aligns with global efforts to foster collaborative learning environments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207