Effects of International Student Counselors' Broaching Statements About Cultural and Language Differences on Participants' Perceptions of the Counselors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undergraduates (N = 135) evaluated 1 of 4 simulated 1st counseling sessions. Two international counselors (Canadian and Korean) alternated between making or not making broaching statements about their language and cultural differences. Significant main effects for counselor nationality and interaction effects between counselor nationality and broaching were found. Participants perceived the Canadian counselor more positively and the Korean counselor less positively in the broaching condition. Participants' cognitive flexibility was a significant covariate of their perceptions. Un grupo de estudiantes universitarios (N = 135) evaluó 1 de 4 sesiones iniciales de consejería simuladas. Dos consejeros internacionales (canadiense y coreano) alternaron entre hacer comentarios o no para abordar las diferencias entre sus idiomas y culturas. Se encontraron efectos principales significativos en relación a la nacionalidad del consejero y una interacción entre la nacionalidad y el abordamiento. Los participantes percibieron al consejero canadiense de forma más positiva y al consejero coreano de forma menos positiva en la situación de abordamiento. La flexibilidad cognitiva de los participantes fue una covariable significativa en su percepción.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".