MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493328833 · doi:10.1109/ipcc.1994.347502

Multiculturalism: the college classroom and the world of business

2002· article· en· W1493328833 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Ellen Greenwood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsHumber College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMulticulturalismDiversity (politics)Variety (cybernetics)PoliticsFunction (biology)SociologyCultural diversityPublic relationsPedagogyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Budget considerations, political influences, and demographic trends are having a significant impact on universities and colleges. The rapid changes created by the computer and facsimile have profoundly altered the way in which people deal with information, and these changes have affected both business and education. Success depends on the process by which people understand, remember, and present information. Teachers are responsible for enabling students to organize information and make maximum use of their skills. From recent secondary school graduates with abundant theoretical knowledge to mature adults with many years of practical experience, students of different cultures and races bring with them varied customs and traditions. Academia's challenge is to harmonize increasing cultural diversity in college classrooms with established protocol of the business world. Professors must prepare their students to function successfully in the world of business and, at the same time, maintain their individuality. Acknowledging this individuality affects teaching methods and curriculum design. How can professors prepare students to communicate effectively with people from different cultures in the classroom and in the business world? In addition to discussing recent findings on the topic, this paper focuses on the diversity of the students and the variety of their experiences and abilities; raises questions about classes and lessons; and attempts to reconcile this information in terms of established business practices.>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.019
Scholarly communication0.0250.009
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207