Calmly Coping: A Motivational Interviewing via Co-Active Life Coaching (MI-via-CALC) Intervention For University Students Suffering From Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this semester-long pilot study was to assess the impact of Motivational Interviewing via Co-Active Life Coaching (MI-via-CALC) on the stress management experiences of 30 full-time, English-speaking students aged 17-24 years. Participants’ experiences were assessed quantitatively using the previously validated Perceived Stress Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (which is divided into Anxiety and Depression scales) at pre-, mid-, and post-intervention. Three one-way, repeated-measures ANOVAs were completed for each scale and statistically significant differences in stress reduction were found for all scales between pre-intervention to mid-intervention, and between pre-intervention to post- intervention; no statistically significant differences occurred between mid-intervention to post- intervention. Inductive content analysis of the qualitative interviews at pre-, mid-, and post- intervention revealed participants’ positive experiences with the intervention. Methods were employed throughout to enhance qualitative data trustworthiness. MI-via-CALC is a promising approach for university students struggling with stress and additional research on a larger sample is warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".