MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W569120738 · doi:10.5206/cie-eci.v37i1.9113

Negotiating the Culture of the Academy: Chinese Graduate Students in Canada

2008· article· en· W569120738 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative and International Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeHumanitiesSociologyNegotiationGraduate studentsPedagogyPsychologyArtSocial scienceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.275 · 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