MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407556804 · doi:10.32674/j57mcd40

Fostering academic hospitality

2025· article· en· W4407556804 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Derrick Rasheed Mohamed, Imbenzi George

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Students · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsHospitalityEquity (law)Higher educationSociologyInclusion (mineral)Cultural diversityPedagogyPublic relationsDiversity (politics)Cultural pluralismPsychologyPolitical scienceGender studiesTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muslim postgraduate students in Canada face unique challenges that intersect with their cultural, academic, and religious identities. This study examines survey responses from 524 students at a Canadian university, 19.5% of whom identified as Muslim, to explore their experiences and key obstacles. Findings reveal significant challenges, including adapting to Canadian academic norms, navigating cultural integration, financial stress, and balancing religious observances within a secular academic environment. This research highlights the critical role of academic hospitality in addressing these barriers. Strategies such as culturally sensitive faculty training, inclusive orientation programs, and institutional policies tailored to religious and cultural diversity are shown to enhance students’ academic success and sense of belonging. This study contributes to the growing discourse on equity and inclusion in higher education, offering practical recommendations for fostering supportive environments for Muslim international students in Canadian post-secondary institutions.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.446
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International StudentsSame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207