Global portfolios and strategic international partnerships of a major research university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization motivates universities to provide a proactive institutional response to the needs and opportunities of globalizing markets and to support the national agenda of productivity and competition. This pressure has accelerated the pace at which major research universities reach out to international markets and are exposed to an increasingly competitive world within the barrier-free globalizing environment. Using the conceptual framework of international relations affected by marketization, this thesis delves into the organizational behaviour of a major research university, which has embarked on adjustments to its institutional mechanisms for an integrated and proactive response to the globalization pressures. Six case studies examining divisional and university-wide processes of internationalization at the University of Toronto formed the basis for analyzing three major processes-individuation, institutionalization, and marketization-that shape perspectives for global outreach and development of international partnerships at a major research university in the time of globalization. By analyzing institutional policy instruments (global MRU's International Strategies portfolios, and international partnerships) used by some university decision-makers to create a more harmonious and focused international strategy, this thesis explores what motivates and de-motivates institutional collaboration, whether decentralization or centralization can serve as vehicles for the promotion of partnership building, and what costs and benefits may be incurred in the process. In particular, this thesis investigates how various major research university divisions make choices about areas of responsibility and determine which connections are strategic and worthwhile to pursue, and which are not. The dichotomy between the institutional aspirational story and the grassroots empirical story is examined within the context shaped by the "characterological development" of a major research university, by the lack of government support to international research, and by the growth of asymmetric partnerships, as encouraged by the processes of marketization and individuation. This thesis expands on and contributes knowledge to the area of internationalization of higher education by distinguishing the organizational behavior of a major research university from other knowledge institutions and universities described in the literature, as well as by identifying and examining the specific character of entrepreneurial response that emerges when a public major research university is pulled into the process of marketization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".