MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294931076 · doi:10.1177/03400352221116922

How do Asian international students use Australian university libraries? A literature review

2022· review· en· W4294931076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clare Patricia O’Dwyer

Bibliographic record

VenueIFLA Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternationalizationContext (archaeology)Library scienceDiversity (politics)Public relationsSociologyPolitical scienceBusinessHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The findings of this literature review are applicable to university libraries globally, as students accessing libraries are now more culturally diverse than was the case historically. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, this diversity was due to increased numbers of international students attending selected universities in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Canada. The literature suggests that the different information seeking, cultural transition, information disruption, English-language challenges and learning styles of Asian international students are not fully understood by western university libraries. Consequently, university libraries may not have strategically aligned to their university’s internationalisation objectives. Lack of understanding of the experiences of Asian international students potentially attenuates their well-being and academic success. Furthermore, this lack of adaption could place universities, such as those in Australia, at risk of not meeting national regulatory compliance expectations. This review examines the literature about the context of Asian international students’ use of Australian university libraries and introduces a research project that explores the lived experience of using Australian university libraries. The review identifies literature regarding the changing profile of Asian international students enrolled in Australian universities, their information-seeking behaviour, cross-cultural dimensions, their communication skills, and the expectations of an Australian university library. The review of this literature also seeks to explore who is studying international students, which methods are being used to do so, and which topics are of particular interest to the researchers. Finally, the review considers new post-COVID-19 pandemic opportunities for both libraries and other service areas to understand the needs of Asian international students as universities competitively recruit for their return.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFLA JournalSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207