Colonial logics as public secrets of international student mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contributes to international student mobility’s ethical reimagining by stressing what continues to be foreclosed by that imagining – that is, the depth of the task’s complexities. To do so, it outlines international student mobility’s colonial roots (as a phenomenon) and applied roots (as a field) and discusses how both shape, and are shaped by, its field-imaginary. It then uses the concept of “public secrets” to name the obvious, yet often forgotten, colonial logics underpinning the field of international education, and international student mobility in particular. It suggests these public secrets are one reason why the field’s critical interventions have failed to have more concrete impacts. It then specifically discusses the problematic binaries which underpin the field, especially the term “international student,” as examples of such public secrets. Finally, it discusses three common responses critical internationalization scholars and practitioners might use to respond to this provocation: (1) further/different critique; (2) proposed solutions (e.g., new vocabulary), and disinvestment (e.g., new grammar).
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".