MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386697276 · doi:10.22158/wjer.v10n5p17

International Student Policy in Canada: A Critical Analysis

2023· article· en· W4386697276 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xiaobin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Educational Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDestinationsFavouriteImmigrationPolitical scienceInternational educationPublic relationsSociologyHigher educationLawTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is a critical analysis of Canadian policies on international students and these students’ experiences in Canada. The author has carefully reviewed the relevant literature and has reached a conclusion based on the literature that Canadian international education has developed significantly in the last half century with the annual arriving international students increasing substantially. This increase has served the interests of Canada well and most international students find their experiences of receiving Canadian education positive. They have become an important source of new immigrants. For good reasons Canada is considered one of the favourite destinations for international students. But when they attempt to integrate into the society and when they attempt to join the labour force, particularly in their studied field, there have been challenges. The author also discusses the implications of the Canadian policies on international students. In addition, the author offers a few recommendations on how to improve the policies and the experiences of international students in Canada, particularly for those who decide to remain here after the completion of their study.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0520.023
Scholarly communication0.0270.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.009
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.398 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207