A Comprehensive Look at Intergroup Relations and Contact Between International Students and the Host Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that intergroup relations and contact between international students and host communities may be challenging. While international students sometimes experience discrimination on- or off-campus, international students themselves may also form negative attitudes toward host community members based on imagined or real experiences with them. Therefore, to address this issue, this dissertation set out to investigate variables that may lead to potentially prejudicial attitudes between international students and host community members and to examine the link between such attitudes and the quantity and quality of intergroup contact. \nStudy 1 explored potential factors that inform francophone residents’ attitudes toward international students in English-medium universities in Montréal and examined the link between their quality and quantity of contact and their attitudes and perceived threat. First, between-group comparisons revealed similarly positive attitudes toward and relatively low levels of perceived threat from international students, except for linguistic threat, which was significantly higher for non-student francophones. Non-student francophones also reported considerably less frequent and lower quality of contact with international students. Second, while symbolic threat was the common predictor of attitudes for both student and non-student francophones, intergroup anxiety also emerged as a significant predictor of student francophones’ attitudes toward international students. Third, contact quality yielded significant associations with both attitudes (positive) and all types of perceived threat (negative except for stereotypes), whereas contact quantity was linked with intergroup anxiety only for student francophones. \nStudy 2 essentially replicated Study 1 to provide the international student perspective regarding intergroup attitudes and contact. International students reported similarly low perceived threat from (except for linguistic threat) as well as comparably high quality of contact with student and non-student francophones. However, they indicated significantly more favourable attitudes and more frequent contact with non-student francophones. While intergroup anxiety was the predictor of attitudes toward student francophones, stereotypes predicted their attitudes toward non-student francophones. Contact quality yielded positive links with attitudes and negative associations with all perceived threats, except for stereotypes. Contact quantity, on the other hand, was associated with intergroup anxiety, linguistic threat, and stereotypes only for non-student francophones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".