Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following a qualitative research design, this study aims to explore the differences between international and American graduate students in terms of their class participation. The data for the study were collected from a graduate-level class at a university in upstate New York. There were seven participants in the study, three of the participants were American students, and the other four participants were international students, two from China, one from Iran, and one from Sudan. Main source of data was classroom observations. Three classroom sessions were observed and field notes were taken during observations. There were two phases of the data analysis process. During the first phase, field notes were reviewed after observations and five general categories of classroom participation were identified. During the second phase, the data were further analyzed in order to see the differences between American and international students in terms of their class participation according to these five categories. Results of data analysis revealed three main differences between American and international students’ class participation in the observed graduate classroom setting. The first main difference involved the short answer/example and explanation categories, the second main difference involved the questions to the instructor/classmates for clarification/repetition and the questions to raise discussion categories, and the last main difference involved the answer/explanation assigned by the instructor category.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".