International Students in American Higher Education: A Quantitative Study Comparing Their Distribution from Both Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives and the Implications on Policy Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the distribution of international students in American higher education in each region of America. Non-parametric tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Kruskal-Wallis test, were employed to explore the significant differences of international student population among the five American regions from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. The results of the study show that 1) there is significant difference of international student population among the five American regions in 2016; 2) Northeastern, Southeastern, and Midwestern regions have significantly larger international student population in 2016 than that in 2015; however, Western and Southwestern regions do not have significantly larger international student population in 2016 than that in 2015; 3) climate and geographic location, and the population of immigrants are the reasons of the current distribution of international students; and 4) there are four potential strategies that can be applied to promote the internationalization of higher education and the enrollment of international students. Two future research directions were proposed at the end of the paper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".