MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417261517 · doi:10.5539/jel.v15n2p236

Exploring Emotional Discourse and Identity Construction of Chinese Overseas Students on Xiaohongshu

2025· article· W4417261517 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siqi Che

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangdong Office of Philosophy and Social Science
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Bridge (graph theory)Identity (music)ChinaCultural identityDiscourse analysisCultural diversityExpression (computer science)Social media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the relaxed COVID-19 policies, China remains the largest source of international students, while social media profoundly reshapes their information acquisition and social patterns. This study adopts a multimodal discourse analysis framework, selecting 100 posts by Chinese overseas students on Xiaohongshu (2021-2025) across English-speaking countries (UK, US, Australia), non-English-speaking European nations (Germany, Sweden, Italy), and East Asian states (Japan, South Korea). It explores how students use multimodal content (text, images, videos) to express emotions, construct cross-cultural identities, and foster cultural and emotional resonance. Findings reveal Xiaohongshu as a key platform for cross-cultural identity construction. Students employ diverse strategies: humorous self-mockery to bridge language barriers, visual contrast to demonstrate cultural differences, and cultural proximity to alleviate academic and life pressures. They transform overseas predicaments into cross-cultural narratives, promoting integration and forming a hybrid identity combining critical thinking and cultural belonging. The study expands the theoretical framework of cross-cultural identity construction in the digital age, highlighting multimodal discourse’s role in harmonizing individual emotional expression and collective cultural identity. Practically, it provides references for educators, counselors, and policymakers to optimize international student support systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207