MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404159428 · doi:10.1080/14623943.2024.2426275

The theory of intercultural education for international students

2024· article· en· W4404159428 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wei Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueReflective Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPedagogyIntercultural competenceInternational educationIntercultural communicationIntercultural learningIntercultural relationsSociologyHigher educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intercultural education is commonly considered an important aspect of international student education that the host universities need to provide. Based on first-hand observations and experiences as an international educator in Canada, this practitioner reflective inquiry critiques three theoretical foundations that are often drawn upon in current intercultural education practices for international students, namely Culture Shock, Cultural Dimensions, and Cultural Adaptation. After unpacking the limitations of these theoretical frameworks, this paper aims to provide a coherent new theory of intercultural education for international students on the basis of three different concepts, namely Complexity Theory, Small Cultures, and Global Citizenship. By embracing these three different concepts, the new theory proposed in this paper advocates a paradigm shift from modern to postmodern, from positivist to deconstructive, and from Eurocentric to Globalist approaches to intercultural education for international students, the majority of whom have moved from the Global South to the Global North for higher education.

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)0.006
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.044
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.433 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReflective PracticeSame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207