Roundtable 4: No One Is International
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This roundtable brings challenge to the idea of addressing global awareness in the terms of "internationalisation" to begin with. Specifically, this roundtable questions our efforts to identify any of the persons, experiences, or knowledge that we may engage in the academic as "international" versus Canadian.\nParticular questions to be addressed: If we presume that all of our studies can somehow be "internationalised," then is there actually any sound boundary between the "national" and the "international" in our studies? If we seek greater understanding of ourselves in complex global contexts and relations in our studies with others from other communities, does it make any sense to facilitate the institution of bureaucratic divisions between "national" students and faculty versus "international" students and faculty? How can we hear, listen to, and learn from the voices of students and faculty members from elsewhere without requiring these voices to fit and speak from ethnic, cultural, or national molds? How can we promote global awareness in our teaching and studies that situates ourselves and our students in the world, rather than reducing the world into national versus international contexts?
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.156 | 0.067 |
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".