MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027142874

Canadian university internationalization: selective perceptions of five faculty members

2011· dissertation· en· W7027142874 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternationalizationPerceptionProcess (computing)Higher educationPerspective (graphical)PhenomenonInstitutional theory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internationalization of post secondary institutions has been suggested as one of the most critical undertakings of higher education today. Despite growing interest in this phenomenon as an institutional initiative, relatively few studies consider internationalization from the perspective of faculty members whom some have identified as key catalysts of the internationalization process. Using a phenomenological research approach to examine the experience of five faculty members actively engaged in the internationalization process of their Canadian university I seek to understand how participants define internationalization, what motivates them to engage in this process and how the institutional and individual efforts to internationalize influence each other. I compare faculty motivations with institutional positions through an analysis of strategic institutional documents using de Wit’s (2002) internationalization rationale categories. Results suggest that institutional internationalization might be more effective in engaging faculty members when faculty perspectives and priorities are considered in the development of institutional strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0320.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainIncentives
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207