An Analysis of the Current Status in Attracting International Students in Korea and Abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A studyaims to analyze the current status of international students in Korea from multiple perspectives in the context of globalized education, while also examining the trends and challenges regarding international students in other countries.By analyzing the status of international students both domestically and in major countries, this study seeks to propose strategies for maintaining and developing Korea's policies on international students in order to compete with educationally advanced nations.To achieve this, the study analyzes the status of international students in 2024, including factors such as degree programs, academic disciplines, the number of students per 10,000 domestic students, university recruitment, regional distribution, and countries of origin.Additionally, the study examines the status of international students in major countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, China, and Japan, which are considered leaders in international education.Based on this analysis, the study suggests future tasks for improving the policies.These tasks include diversifying the recruitment of international students, improving management systems, and strengthening employment linkage programs.The recruitment policy for international students is not only related to higher education but is also closely connected to broader societal issues in Korea.Therefore, it is a crucial topic that requires comprehensive and multifaceted discussions moving forward.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".