Theorising Intercontinental PHD Students’ Experiences: The Case of Students from Africa, and Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The doctorate degree ranks third on the academic hierarchy, and is commonly viewed as an approval on a student by an institution, to conduct original research in at least one academic discipline. Several motivations drive the need to acquire a doctorate degree, and they include intrinsic interest, employment considerations, personal, and professional development. To achieve this feat, some students pursue their PhD abroad for several reasons as discovered by this study. Using a quantitative approach, this paper reports on the findings of an online survey distributed to 1901 Asian and African students pursing their PhD to investigate their experiences, and determine their satisfaction, and its relationship with their personal and professional growth. Findings reveal that most students were satisfied with their decision to pursue a PhD in another continent, but were dissatisfied with some properties that made up the process. This included their relationship with their supervisors, their study-work-life balance, and its effects on their mental health. As you are reporting on a study that has already happened, write in past tense.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".