
This study is a meta-cognitive discussion about whether non-English scientists know about the existence of computer tools – such as monolingual, bilingual and multilingual electronic dictionaries, CAT [Computer Assisted Translation] tools - and whether they know how to use them in order to communicate their inter-disciplinary research internationally. It also discusses what is at stake when concepts such as inter-scientificity (i.e. “bar”, with 17 different terms in Greek) and reverse inter-scientificity (i.e. “πρόγραμμα” [: program] with at least 6 different terms in English) emerge. Then the author of this study claims that only human mind/intelligence (nous) - with the aid artificial intelligence (computer –CAT tools) and through different mental/cognitive processes (noesis) can establish certain criteria in choosing appropriate terms and expressions, so that an inter-disciplinary research can be communicated properly and thus (international) scientific communication can be achieved effectively. Finally, the author of the present study proposes that Higher Education Institutions [HEIs] in North America (the USA and Canada) and Europe should get involved in educating and training both their large number of international students and staff administrative and academic), if a proper international inter-disciplinary communication is to be attained.
computer (ai), nous (hi), terminological data bank (tdb) higher education in, Communication. Mass media, swot analysis, Information technology, reverse inter-scientificity, inter-scientificity, T58.5-58.64, P87-96
computer (ai), nous (hi), terminological data bank (tdb) higher education in, Communication. Mass media, swot analysis, Information technology, reverse inter-scientificity, inter-scientificity, T58.5-58.64, P87-96
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
