AI Across Borders: Exploring Perceptions and Interactions in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates students’ perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), with a focus on Higher Education institutions in Northern Ireland and India. We collect quantitative Likert ratings and qualitative comments from 1211 students on their awareness and perceptions of AI and investigate variations in attitudes toward AI across institutions and subject areas, as well as interactions between these variables with demographic variables (focusing on gender). We found the following: (a) while perceptions varied across institutions, responses for Computer Sciences students were similar, both in terms of topics and degree of positivity; and (b) after controlling for institution and subject area, we observed no effect of gender. These results are consistent with previous studies, which find that students’ perceptions are predicted by prior experience; crucially, however, the results of this study contribute to the literature by identifying important interactions between key factors that can influence experience, revealing a more nuanced picture of students’ perceptions and the role of experience. We consider the implications of these relations, and further considerations for the role of experience.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".