Supervising International Graduate Students in Sport Management: Perspectives of Experienced Advisors
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 study examined the perspectives of sport management academicians regarding their experiences supervising international graduate students. Fifteen experts were interviewed and provided their perspectives on practices used in international student involvement—specifically, student identification, recruitment, acceptance, orientation, progress, and retention, and the inherent challenges and benefits. The primary challenges cited by the majority of participants were language and cultural differences in learning; however, all participants concurred that the benefits of supervising international students far outweighed the challenges. These benefits included, but were not limited to, bringing international and global perspectives into the learning environment, which was positive for both students and professors. Findings from this study may provide program administration with insights on key factors affecting the quality of delivery of sport management education to international students. Consequently, high-quality programs can be developed to meet the needs of students from diverse cultural and educational backgrounds.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it