“It Would Be Better If You Can Hang Out With Different People”: An Examination of Cross-National Interaction in Postsecondary Classrooms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the motivations and experiences of international and domestic students on three U.S. campuses related to cross-national interactions within classroom settings. The study also examines the role of instructors in facilitating such interactions through individual and group interviews. Findings indicate that domestic students appreciate the global perspectives of international students related to course content. International students, in turn, appreciate the “real world” perspectives that domestic students provide about the US (but do not necessarily find value in their content-related comments). The implications of this study are that cross-national interactions have different meanings for different stakeholders (i.e., some perceive to benefit academically while others perceive to benefit culturally). The implications of this study relate to how instructors structure student interactions and what might be reasonable outcomes for students in international groups in postsecondary classrooms.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it