MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1870675587 · doi:10.5430/wje.v5n5p1

Barriers to the Utilisation of Counselling Services by International Students

2015· article· en· W1870675587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexa Kambouropoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralMedical educationService (business)DistressPsychologyHealth servicesMedicineNursingClinical psychologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International students are particularly affected by issues related to physical health, academic studies, and social andpsychological matters. Despite sometimes-enormous emotional distress, there is evidence to suggest that thesestudents are reticent to use counselling services to address these issues. The purpose of this study is to examine therate of utilisation of counselling services by students at two Australian university campuses. Ninety participantscompleted a survey that examined their help-seeking behavior, the barriers that hindered them from seekingcounselling, and how they eventually came to access the service. Follow-up interviews with a subset of thesestudents (n=21) were used to gain more detailed information about their use and experience of counselling services.Counsellors were also interviewed to obtain their perspective on these issues. It was found that several factorshindered students’ use of counselling services and that an overwhelming majority seek help from their friends andother fellow international students rather than counselling services. However, some sought assistance unilaterally, orby referral from academic staff. It was concluded that international students were indeed reticent to attendcounselling services, and there is a strong need for counselling services to be aware of cultural attitudes that act as ablockage to their utilisation.

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 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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207