Decision-Making Process of International Undergraduate Students: An Exploratory Narrative Inquiry into Reflections of Chinese Students in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This research is an exploratory narrative inquiry into reflections of three Chinese international undergraduate students in a Canadian university, University S, which reveals participants’ entire decision-making processes as potential international undergraduate students. Design/Approach/Methods: A two-dimensional analytical framework has been constructed. One dimension is based on three phases of the entire decision-making process: the phases of deciding whether or not to study abroad, selecting destination countries, and choosing target institutions. The second dimension is based on three kinds of hypothetically proposed environmental factors within each phase: policy factors, (family and regional) socioeconomic factors, and information factors. First-hand data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted based on the analytical framework. Findings: This article suggests that both policymakers in the source country (i.e., China) and university administrators in the destination country (i.e., Canada) should further support potential international undergraduate students during each phase of their decision-making processes, particularly through optimizing information supply channels. Originality/Value: This article has the potential to construct a new theoretical framework as a supplement for analyzing the entire decision-making process of potential international students. As a pilot study, it provides a template for further investigations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".