“You have to be okay with okay”: experiences of flourishing among university students transitioning directly from high school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental health is central to overall wellbeing and, for students attending university, mental health is critical for learning and academic success. A wealth of research has focused on young people who experience psychosocial declines during academic and developmental transitions, but little is known about how young people flourish in this transition. The first to explore the experiences of flourishing among first-year Canadian university students making the transition directly from high school, this study sought to develop an understanding of: 1) the factors that promote flourishing amidst this academic and developmental transition, and 2) how first-year students define and experience flourishing. An interpretive phenomenological approach underpinned by Gadamerian hermeneutic philosophy was used to explore experiences of flourishing, using semi-structured interviews, in a sample of nine full-time, first-year university students, ages 18–20 years. What it meant to flourish amidst this developmental and academic transition and how participants defined flourishing offer new understandings of the concept associated with: 1) personal/individual aspects of flourishing, 2) contextual nature of flourishing, 3) temporality of flourishing, 4) dialectic aspects of flourishing. Implications for practice, policy, and research in light of these new understandings are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".