“As a friend, that’s the one thing I always am very conscious not to do”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The field of study abroad (SA) research has paid scant attention to the perspectives of people with whom SA students interact in the host community (e.g., Kinginger, 2012 ), particularly to the perspectives of peers. This paper analyzes interviews conducted with eight English-speaking peers of Japanese SA students sojourning in Western Canada. Using membership categorization analysis (MCA) ( Housley & Fitzgerald, 2015 ), it examines how peers used category-based rationales to claim or resist responsibilities related to the SA students’ language development. Findings point to the relevance of two local identity categories: friends and exchange students. Exchange students were constructed as responsible for ‘asking for help’ while peers constructed their own role as ‘helping when asked’. Peers also treated correction as an ‘unfriendly’ practice. In addition to providing insight into peers’ understandings of their roles in students’ learning, the analyses demonstrate how interview questions can shape the participants responses in meaningful ways.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 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".