MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2935218011

Cardiodynamic Associations With Resilience in Undergraduate Students and the Effect of a Mentorship Intervention

2018· article· en· W2935218011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Knetsch

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipIntervention (counseling)Resilience (materials science)Psychological resilienceMedical educationPsychologyMedicineNursingSocial psychologyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National College Health Assessment (NCHA) indicates that a majority of Canadian university students report feeling overwhelmed, stressed, and anxious during their undergraduate studies. Resilience refers to positive adaptation, or the ability to maintain or regain mental health, despite experiencing adversity (Herrman et al., 2011). While autonomic indices have been used to describe chronic physiological stress, the role of heart rate variability (HRV) as an index of resilience remains unclear. This research tested the hypotheses that (1) there is a relationship between HRV and resilience scoresand (2) a mentorship intervention will improve HRV and resilience outcomes. Fifty-seven first year students participated in a full year Kinesiology course (4444E/3333Y) and were paired with upper year mentors, alongside twelve controls. Twice during the academic year, sleeping HRV was measured using Firstbeat Bodyguard 2 device and resilience and other indices of mental health were assessed using online questionnaires. Regression analysis established the relationship between HRV and resilience scores at baseline (r=0.30, p

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→