The challenge of internationalization: an institutional perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acadia University has been active in the recruitment of international students for the past ten years. The presence of over 700 international students has dramatically changed Acadia's university campus and the surrounding community. The success of Acadia's international student recruitment efforts is partially reflective of global student mobility trends, as over the past twenty years, the size of the international student market has grown markedly, and is predicted to triple or quadruple again in the next fifteen years. This study asserts that the presence of so many international students has been driven by neoliberal forces and by market demands, much less by the desire to enrich and diversify post-secondary education and the University, or what is referred to in this study as "internationalization". "Globalization" has often meant the commodification of higher education. This study examines the extent to which this has occurred in one Canadian institution. This study has not found significant evidence to support the notion that Acadia has achieved success in genuine "internationalization"; rather, the university has succumbed to global market forces and demands. This study finds evidence to support the assertion that Acadia has not infused its academic and co-curricular programs or the general university student experience with international and diverse perspectives. This study provides a conceptual framework from which to understand the powerful forces of neo-liberalism and "globalization" and how they relate to higher education, organizational change, and the challenge of "internationalization", in particular, at Acadia University.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".