Why am I here? A self-study of an international art education student lost in transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article is an arts-based inquiry into the often overlooked stories of international graduate students (IGSs) in art education. In this case, I draw on my experiences as a Korean graduate student in Canada, rendered through visuals and text. As part of my ongoing reflective process, I approached this project through life writing and drawing as a means to articulate my understandings of the moments within my first year in the programme. The questions that guided my research include the following: What kind of academic adaptation issues do IGSs experience? Does a personal story provide useful insight into the phenomena of the academic adaptation process? And how do visual narratives as arts-based educational research (ABER) provide a rendering of the experience of an IGS? With this intent, this article examines diverse ways that help to broaden and deepen the discourses of international students in educational studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".