MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3170677009 · doi:10.82308/27650

The academic adaptation of mainland Chinese doctoral students in education at McGill University /

2007· article· en· W3170677009 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shu-Hua Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)PedagogyMainlandHigher educationMainland ChinaSociologyMathematics educationLibrary scienceMedia studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceChinaGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the academic adaptation of five Mainland Chinese doctoral students in the Faculty of Education at McGill University, Quebec, Canada. Using individual interviewing as the primary research method, the study revealed 12 major challenge areas, i.e., English as a second language, financial difficulties, outsider feelings, worries about career paths, course work, research network, TA/RA experiences, differences between doctoral and master's studies, isolation, pace of the PhD, motherhood and doctoral study, and adjusting research directions. Through comparing the findings with the literature and the data from secondary sources, this study concluded that the academic adaptation of Mainland Chinese doctoral students in Canada is a process in which cross-cultural adaptation intertwines with disciplinary socialization. The study contributes to literature by (1) documenting an under-researched group---PhD students in education from Mainland China in Canada; and (2) looking at academic adaptation through two lenses: cross-cultural adaptation and disciplinary socialization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicHigher Education Governance and Development→French-language works237,207→