Exploring cross-group relationships among students at a Canadian university: what factors promote lasting relationships and positive university experiences?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-group friendships, defined as close and meaningful relationships among individuals belonging to different social groups (e.g., different nationality groups) are associated with positive outcomes but are more likely to dissolve relative to friendships between individuals belonging to same social group. The aims of this research project are to examine potential conditions under which cross-group relationships last and promote positive outcomes among students at a Canadian university. Based on previous literature, several qualities that may promote lasting cross-group friendships were examined: closeness (both subjective and inclusion of other in self), perceived similarity (both subjective and personality similarity), social network integration and salience of group membership. In Study 1 the extent to which these qualities existed in self-reported current and past cross-group friendships was explored in a sample of 325 students. The friendship qualities listed above were present to a greater extent in current than in past same- and cross-group friendships, although there were some differences based on cross-group friendship type. Thus, these qualities may contribute to cross-group friendships lasting versus dissolving. In Study 2 outcomes of cross-group relationships between international students and students at a Canadian university registered in a peer mentoring program were explored as well as the influence of friendship promoting qualities in these relationships. Although sample size was lower than anticipated for this study (mentee N = 16, mentor N = 29, control N = 30), some promising outcomes were observed. For new international student mentees, mentoring relationships promoted university engagement and for domestic student mentors mentoring relationships reduced intergroup anxiety. Friendship qualities were associated with more positive attitudes toward the partner. Findings from this research can inform efforts to promote the development of cross-group friendships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".