MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210638428 · doi:10.32920/19003913.v1

The Acculturation Orientation of International Student Centres Analysed Using Bourhis’ Interactive Acculturation Model (Iam)

2022· preprint· en· W4210638428 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathryn Maria Deckert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationThematic analysisGovernment (linguistics)SociologyPsychologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceQualitative researchLinguisticsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses Bourhis’ Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM) to analyse the type(s) of dominant host acculturation orientation(s) espoused by the International Student Services Offices at the University of Toronto, York University, and Ryerson University through their International Student Services webpages. The multilevel structure of the IAM model allows the researcher to consider the multiple spheres in which the students exist: macro level government policy, the city in which the university is located, their experience on campus. To guide this analysis, the researcher followed a thematic constructionist approach to capture important content from the data that could be used to respond to this question. After the coding process five key themes were identified based on their prevalence in the data and their utility in answering the research question (Braun and Clark, 2006). The host orientation of all three International Student Services webpages is found to be predominantly one of integration.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207