Globalization, Technologies, and Digital Culture in Graduate Contexts: Intercultural Possibilities and Challenges
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focused on interculturally juxtaposing different higher education communities’ experiences with digital culture and technologies. The dialogues created among researchers from three different countries – Brazil, Canada, and the UK – contribute to an exchange of reflections and problematizations of what innovative and ubiquitous pedagogical practices are like. For the past few years, especially due to COVID-19, researchers have identified the impact of digital culture on educational practices in different universities, highlighting there is a need to further understand the relationship between the advancements in digital culture and its outcomes for innovative educational practices. The participants in the study helped the research team to consider the possibilities and challenges of digital culture in education by sharing perspectives on: 1) the conception educational communities in universities have about innovation, educational practices and digital culture; and 2) the relationship of instructors, students, and other members of the educational community (e.g.; secretaries, deans, head of departments) toward educational practices that include innovation, and digital culture in their day-to-day practices. Our discussions broadened the notions of innovation, and digital culture in educational practices by inviting professionals from universities from different contexts to reflect on intercultural aspects that shape new dialogues to negotiate tensions among educational practices within digital culture. Keywords
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it