Negotiating the Culture of the Academy: Chinese Graduate Students in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the process and results of a narrative inquiry into the stories of eight Chinese international graduate students. Results show three main commonalities in participants’ education narratives in China: parental influence, the exam system and independent study. In the Canadian setting, specific aspects of the academic culture are experienced as permeable (written work, lab work, tests and reading ability) or impermeable (in-class discussions, oral presentations, group work, oral discourse, communicating with local people). Discussion articulates participants’ use of unique personal resources, which results in distinctive trajectories of entry into and navigation within this new academic culture. Cet article présente le processus et les résultats d'une enquête narrative de huit étudiants internationaux chinois de troisème cycle. Les résultats montrent les trois éléments communs dans la narration des participants: l'influence des parents, le système des examens, et l'étude individuelle. Dans le cadre canadien, les participants ont reconnu des aspects spécifiques de la culture académique comme perméables (travaux écrits, travaux de laboratoire,les examens et compétence en lecture) ou imperméables (discussions en classe, présentations orales, travaux en groupes, entretiens oraux, et communication avec les habitants locaux). La discussion clarifie l'usage d'uniques ressources personnelles par chaque participant La discussion clarifie l'usage d'uniques ressources personnelles par chaque participant dont le résultat définit des trajectoires distinctifs d'entrée et de navigation au coeur de cette nouvelle culture académique.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".