Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I explore the impact of bipolar disorder on the experiences of two groups of postsecondary students. I theorize that Bourdieu’s (1986) theory of forms of capital provides a lens for understanding how these students negotiate social, cultural, institutional, and symbolic forms of capital in their daily academic lives. I analyze the studies using a constant comparative method often used in research employing ethnographic techniques. The findings examine students’ concerns around learning and achievement within university settings and the debilitating effects of stigma on individuals identified with bipolar disorder. In doing so, the findings reinforce Bourdieu’s theory of capital, because students require relevant support to increase their access to capital in terms of educational certification, employment, finances, and membership in valued groups. However, Bourdieu’s theory has significant limitations. For the bipolar students in these studies, a form of intrapersonal capital, or personal power, was needed to take responsibility for their education and lives, and to positively influence those around them. The implications suggest that instructors in higher education need to accept students with bipolar disorders, while students with bipolar disorders need to reach out to instructors and share their needs.Keywords: bi-polar disorders; post secondary students; higher education
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".