Attitude and Perception Differences among International Students and Local Students: A Case Study of Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study was designed to gather information, using focus groups, about Asian international students’ experiences and attitudes toward Australian-New Zealanders, to identify the sources of these attitudes, and to discover methods that could address negative attitudes that Asian students might have towards Australian-New Zealanders students. Data were collected from 200 respondents by using simple random technique at the ratio of 100 respondents each (Asian, and Australian-New Zealander students). A well structured questionnaire was used as a tool to record the responses. This article also underlines perspectives for rethinking research strategies with Asian international students. It was revealed that Asians were “nice” and “friendly” and it was easy to develop friendships with them. Some students suggested that friendships were easier to form with Australian-New Zealanderss than with Asian students because Australian-New Zealanders seemed to be more curious about Asian cultures and expressed their emotions more openly and honestly. The participants agreed that Australian-New Zealanders were not all bad, as they were portrayed in the media.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".