Academic and Mental Health Needs of Students on a Canadian Campus/Les Besoins Académiques et En Santé Mentale Des éTudiants Sur Un Campus Canadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University student life is thought to be a time of self-discovery, freedom, and new social experiences. However, for some it can be a stressful and difficult period to navigate, placing students at greater risk for mental health disorders (Blanco et al., 2008). Mental health disorders represent approximately half of all diagnosed health concerns of young adults (World Health Organization, 2010) and 12-month prevalence estimates for a DSM-IV psychiatric disorder among adults in the United States are between 18.5% (Narrow, Rae, Robbins, & Regier, 2002) and 30% (Kessler, Chiu, Demler, & Walters, 2005). Previous epidemiological research indicates that three-fourths of mental health disorders occur before age 24 (Kessler et al., 2005).Controversy surrounds the notion of whether young adults in university experience greater risk for mental health problems than their nonuniversity peers. A national survey conducted in the United States by Blanco et al. (2008) found prevalence rates of any psychiatric disorder within the last 12 months to be similar for both college students and noncollege students. An Australian study, however, compared psychological distress in the general population to a university population and found the student population to be at significantly greater risk for mental health concerns (Stallman, 2010). In addition, qualitative interviews with college administrative staff unveiled a perceived increase in severe psychological concerns presenting at campus counselling services (Watkins, Hunt, & Eisenberg, 2011).In a systematic review of student mental health problems, researchers Storrie, Ahern, and Tuckett (2009) found that 47% of students reported at least one mental health problem, with depression, anxiety, and psychotic disorders representing the majority of mental health concerns. In a randomized sample at a prominent university in the United States, 13.8% of students in the study screened positive for major depressive disorder or other mood disorders, 3.8% screened positive for an anxiety disorder, and 2.5% indicated having suicidal ideations in the previous four weeks (Eisenberg, Gollust, Golberstein, & Hefner, 2007). More recently, a national college student survey conducted by the American College Health Association (2014) found 37% of students identified experiencing anxiety, 33% endorsed symptoms of depression that made it hard to function, and 9% of college students reported attempting suicide at one point in their life. Within the Canadian landscape, there is a growing trend for students with pre-existing mental health problems to attend postsecondary institutions (MacKean, 2011). Considering this trend, it becomes imperative for postsecondary institutions to provide services that are responsive to the mental health needs of the student population.Assessing the ever-changing and diverse needs of university students is an important and ongoing process. Previous research has indicated that student success and mental health are highly correlated (Choi, Buskey, & Johnson, 2010; Lee, Olson, Locke, Michelson, & Odes, 2009; Pritchard & Wilson, 2003). The impact of mental health concerns on students' performance was documented by Pritchard and Wilson (2003), who found that elevated stress levels were associated with lower GPA scores, while fatigue and lower self-esteem were associated with student intent to drop out and poor coping skills. Accessing university counselling services has been significantly associated with student retention (Lee et al., 2009; Sharkin, 2004). Research conducted by Lee and colleagues (2009) found that attending counselling improves student retention, and students who access counselling services were three times more likely to complete their program than those who did not access counselling, regardless of GPA or preuniversity performance. More recently, Choi et al. (2010) found that university students who made clinically significant changes postcounselling reported higher levels of improvement in academic commitment goals and problem resolution. …
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".