MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205703025 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2021.57016

Cultivation of Cross-cultural Adaptability of Application-oriented University Students under the Background of Internationalization

2021· article· en· W3205703025 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
HU Fang-yi, Fengmei Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptabilityInternationalizationAdaptation (eye)Interpersonal communicationPsychologySociologyPedagogyAccountingMathematics educationBusinessSocial scienceManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the background of internationalization, the communication between countries is more and more close, which requires the cross-cultural adaptability(CCA) of talents. The cultivation of CCA of application-oriented university students has a great impact on their future development. The cultural foundation of application-oriented university students is relatively weak, but their practical ability is very strong, which requires changing the traditional talent training objectives, combining the characteristics of application-oriented university students and the training objectives of CCA, promoting the effective combination of theory and practice, and improving the effectiveness of CCA training. This paper mainly studies the cultivation of CCA of application-oriented university students under the background of internationalization. This paper analyzes the causes of cross-cultural maladjustment, and then puts forward some measures to cultivate students' CCA in application-oriented universities. In order to understand the problems of application-oriented university students' specific cross-cultural adaptation, this paper adopts the form of questionnaire survey. The results show that the most common problem of application-oriented university students in cross-cultural adaptation is the language problem which accounts for 27%, followed by the interpersonal problem which accounts for 23%, which is also caused by the differences of language and culture in the final analysis. In addition, there are still work situation problems accounting for 13%, psychological problems accounting for 12%, problems caused by natural environment accounting for 11%, problems caused by daily life accounting for 9%, and values problems accounting for 5%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Educational Technology and PsychologySame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207