MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055438252 · doi:10.1080/03069880600942624

Measuring, monitoring and managing the psychological well-being of first year university students

2006· article· en· W2055438252 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard G. Cooke, Bridgette M. Bewick, Michael Barkham, Margaret M. Bradley, Kerry Audin

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Guidance and Counselling · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsAnxietyPsychologyPopulationHigher educationPsychological well-beingClinical psychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper profiles the psychological well-being of students in their initial year of university. There were three aims: to measure the impact of arrival at university on the psychological well-being of first year students, to monitor (i.e. profile) the shape of psychological well-being across the first year, and to investigate how students manage their well-being in relation to the use of university counselling services. Data were collected on four occasions, with 84% of all first year students at a UK university (4,699 students) completing the questionnaire on at least one occasion. Psychological well-being was assessed using the GP-CORE, a general population form of the CORE-OM. Results show that greater strain is placed on well-being once students start university compared to levels preceding entry. This strain rises and falls across the year but does not return to pre-university levels. Items tapping depression and anxiety suggest that the first year of university is a time of heightened anxiety but not a particularly depressive time. The findings are discussed in relation to students’ experience of higher education and how to match student needs with university counselling service provision.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations312
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Guidance and CounsellingSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207