Mutual Intercultural Relations among University Students in Canada
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
Over 304,000 international students studied in Canadian universities in 2013 (CIC, 2014). In addition to their academic success, one important feature of their stay in Canada is the quality of the intercultural relations, and the adaptations they make during their stay. The present study sought to understand the intercultural relations, acculturation and adaptation of both international students and Canadian students. Fifty-seven international (all from China) and 68 domestic students were drawn from several Canadian universities. Cluster analysis generated two clusters for international students (integration and diffuse) and two for Canadian students (multiculturalism and melting pot). International students in the integration cluster were more tolerant and better adapted than those in the diffuse cluster. Similarly, Canadian students in the multiculturalism cluster were also more tolerant and better adapted than those in the melting pot cluster. Implications of these findings for preparing international and Canadian students for their intercultural encounters were discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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