Exploring the needs of parents at post-secondary institutions: Findings from a cross-sectional survey capturing parenting-related experiences on campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem/Issue Student parents attending and working within post-secondary institutions have low visibility and high needs, as they balance scholarly and parenthood responsibilities. The Queen’s University Child Friendly Campus initiative (QUCFC) was established in 2015 to improve access to resources, as well as cultivate a sense of community for parents at Queen's University. The initiative is multi-faceted and targets three key pillars: community, advocacy, and sustainability. Methods A needs assessment survey was conducted from May to December 2017. Its aim was to capture parenting-related experiences on campus by posing the research question, “How can Queen’s University become a child friendly campus?”. Students, faculty and staff who self-identified as parents of dependent pre-school aged children were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey delivered through Qualtrics. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling, descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyze quantitative and qualitative data. Ethical compliance was obtained from the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board of Queen’s University. Results Fifty-five responses were obtained from the survey (n=50 female, n=5 male). The median age of respondents was 34 years, students consisted of 53% of the sample and the majority reported having one or two children (68%). Those who felt unsupported (n=21) provided qualitative recommendations for increasing inclusivity. The themes included physical infrastructure resources, accessible childcare, and financial benefits. Conclusions These findings can inform future interventions offered to student parents on Queen's campus and be shared with the larger academic community to promote dialogue about the unique needs of student parents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".