Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored thriving in the context of graduate studies as perceived by four female students attending master’s and doctoral programs in a Canadian university. Thriving is an all-encompassing approach that extends beyond meeting the academic objectives (Schreiner, Pothoven, Nelson, & McIntosh, 2009). Recently, there have been extensive studies regarding thriving in the undergraduate context (e.g. Berea, Tsvetovat, Daun-Barnett, Greenwald, & Cox 2015; Schreiner, 2010a; 2013; Schreiner, Kammer, Primose, & Quick, 2011). Despite the uniqueness of the graduate demographic compared to the undergraduate (Gansemer-Topf, Ross & Johnson, 2006), little is known about graduate students’ thriving processes and their fulfillment with their academic experience. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand graduate students’ perceptions and experiences of thriving, as well as the factors that influenced their thriving in graduate school. Data were collected from four female graduate students through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using a deductive thematic approach. Thriving Perceptions and Experiences, Supports for Thriving, and Barriers to Thriving were the pre-determined themes utilized for this study. Supports and barriers were further branched into intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional factors. The findings of this study are presented in two sections. The first section highlighted thriving conceptualization in graduate studies through individuals’ perceptions and experiences. These findings illustrate that thriving in graduate studies is unique, multi-faceted, and malleable. For master’s participants in particular, thriving additionally signified a profound academic transition. In the second section, I presented the conditions that affected thriving, which included notions of connectedness, contribution, mentorship, compartmentalization, and imposter syndrome. Although similar to undergraduate students in many ways, there were distinct characteristics pertaining to thriving among the participants of this study, leading to implications for future research and practice. Keywords: graduate students, graduate school, positive mental health and well-being, thriving
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".