MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989654437

Building bridges: a case study of the development and sustainability of an international partnership in post-secondary engineering education

2009· dissertation· en· W6989654437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdult and Continuing Education Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionArticular cartilage damageGestational periodProteogenomicsHyporeflexiaCircumstantial evidence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a world that is becoming increasingly globalized, a change in the nature of higher education is leading to increased collaboration across borders. In a sector once dominated by developed countries, developing countries are becoming larger players in providing education to their countries and expanding into the field of providing education for others. This partnership began in 1992 when Manitoba was experiencing reduced government funding, frozen tuition rates and declining student numbers while Malaysia was building the capacity of their higher education system. An inter-institutional partnership was established to create a mutually beneficial relationship between the Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba, and University College Sedaya International (UCSI) in Malaysia. This partnership was established with clear cut benefits to both parties and developed over time with close personal ties between the institutions. However, the partnership has been declining since 2003 when UCSI was permitted to grant degrees. The lifecycle of the partnership is examined in light of this structural change. Organization models of episodic change and punctuated equilibrium, and transformative learning theory are used to explain the status of the partnership and the options for its sustainability.

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)0.000
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 score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicAdult and Continuing Education TopicsFrench-language works237,207