MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sense of Belonging

2022· book-chapter· en· W4229367295 on OpenAlexaffabout
Meng Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyStudent engagementSociologyInternationalizationPedagogySocial justicePerspective (graphical)DemocracyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research offers a critical understanding of Western-dominant student engagement in terms of rethinking the sense of belonging of Chinese international graduate student populations. The Western perspective on student engagement in Canadian higher education fails to recognize the broader social and cultural inclusivity and diversities of student sense of belonging. Specifically, this research explores the challenges faced by Chinese international students engaging in Canadian graduate schools towards their sense of belonging. This study offers inclusive ways of rethinking Chinese international students' sense of belonging and engagement by deconstructing Western ideology on student experiences in Canadian higher education. Faculties, institutions, and university communities need to redefine the desired content of student engagement based on social justice values in terms of empowering democratic, inclusive, and diverse student experiences and strengthening their sense of belonging with the landscape of internationalization.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book seriesSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207