International students’ cultural engagement through constructing distance or proximity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International students’ contact and engagement with various cultures has received increased scholarly attention. This scholarship tends to either celebrate students’ cosmopolitanism or highlight their difficulties ‘adapting’ in their receiving countries. In this paper, we examine students’ own perceptions of and engagement with their sending and receiving countries’ cultures through the dialectic of distance and proximity, gleaned from mobilities studies. Based on 20 in-depth online interviews with Vietnamese nationals studying in Vancouver and Paris, our analysis highlights how these students construct or deconstruct notions of distance and proximity between Vietnam and their receiving countries (i.e. France and Canada), as well as between themselves and each of these countries. First, we examine how, before their departure, students cultivate a sense of cultural proximity to their geographically distant countries of destination, through studying and consuming media in French or English. Second, we address students’ rapport with French and Canadian societies as well as their sense of proximity to or distance from Vietnamese culture while studying in France and Canada. We examine how these (de-)constructions of distance can be related to students’ cosmopolitanism. We argue that notions of distance and proximity help foster a nuanced understanding of international students’ mobilities and cosmopolitanism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".