MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133002306

Navigating the Canadian Immigration Process: A Study of International Students' Experience and Interactions with the Student Services Provided by Their Host Universities

2014· dissertation· W7133002306 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wing Sze Wincy Li

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2014
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationOrder (exchange)NarrativeStudy abroadQualitative researchHost (biology)Lived experience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada views international students as potential skilled immigrants. The country has implemented multiple immigration streams to retain these students post-graduation in order to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy. However, research investigating these students' experiences holistically was lacking. This study addressed this gap in literature by looking at: (1) how international students decided on Canada as a study-abroad destination, (2) how they ultimately decided on seeking Canadian permanent residence, and (3) which on-campus services and resources they sought and/or utilized to help navigate the immigration process, and what their experiences with these services were. Six former international students who graduated from Canadian universities, and had since applied for or obtained Canadian permanent residence, were interviewed in this narrative inquiry. Bronfenbrenner's developmental ecology theory was used to situate interviewees' experiences in the broader contexts, and Schlossberg's transition theory was used as a framework to holistically study their experiences with transitions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0470.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.384 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207