MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3213884608 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14645490.v1

Incorporating Spirituality into Post-Secondary Institutions’ Policies and Services as it Relates to International Students

2021· preprint· en· W3213884608 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melanie Zuzarte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersForeign Affairs and International Trade CanadaGovernment of CanadaTemple University
KeywordsAcculturationSpiritualityGovernment (linguistics)Psychological interventionImmigrationFaithPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsSociologyNursingMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some international students arrive in Canada with the assumption that academic institutions will treat them equally in comparison to domestic students. However, equal access to opportunities is not always the case. Unregulated annual tuition fees, immigration policies and a lack of culturally responsive services create challenges for international students that are not shared by domestic students (Chen, 2008; Mayuzumi et al., 2007; Montison, 2018). Canadian post-secondary institutions lack culturally responsive spiritual services that may support international students with their acculturation issues. Child and youth care practitioners may encourage the use of culturally responsive interventions which incorporate spirituality when providing support to international students in their acculturation to Canadian life. Keywords: spirituality, attachment theory, attachment figure, religion, faith, international students, Child and Youth Care Practitioners, post-secondary institutions, Canada, Canadian Government.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology→French-language works237,207→