Are International Undergraduate Students Emerging Adults? Motivations for Studying Abroad
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study investigated the decision-making processes underlying international students’ motivation to study abroad and whether they were related to features of Arnett’s definition of emerging adulthood. A total of 64 international undergraduate students (21 men and 43 women) from 26 countries and in different years of study were interviewed while attending a large, ethnically diverse Canadian university. Using thematic analyses, eight underlying themes of motivations were identified, namely, new experiences, education, improved future career and immigration prospects, qualities of the host country, qualities of the institution, financial reasons, location, and friends and relatives in the host country. Many motivational factors to study abroad highlighted and expanded upon characteristics of Arnett’s theory of emerging adulthood, whereas others were unique to international students. Practical implications include providing universities with information that developmentally situates international students, enhancing universities’ ability to assist students to attain their goals for studying abroad.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it