The perceptions of female Japanese students on homestays and learning English in Greater Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homestay living has long been considered a mainstay of successful English language programs for international students in North America based on the crosscultural experiential learning theory. However, there is a significant knowledge gap of information on the applicability of this theory in the context of nonwestern students living in North America. This study investigated the perceptions of young adult Japanese women who chose to live in homestays while studying English in Greater Vancouver. Eight students were selected primarily based on the number of international students living with their host family. The participants were divided into four categories: one student, two student, three student, and four student homestays. It was found that many of the participants felt that homestays were useful especially in regards to cultural learning and the acquiring of basic life skills needed for life in Greater Vancouver. However, the participants overwhelming felt that students need to have more input on the host family selection process, and that the agencies or schools responsible for organizing homestays must take a greater responsibility in ensuring families offer an acceptable level of homestay care. Finally, only two of the eight participants felt that they would recommend studying English in Greater Vancouver without reservation because of the high number of Japanese students in such programs, there was a feeling amongst the participants that a large contingent of other Japanese students makes it too easy to speak Japanese which reduced their opportunities to befriend Canadians and other international students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".