More than Mental Illness: Experiences of Associating with Stigma of Mental Illness for Chinese College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From existing empirical research, we identified that Chinese college students commonly experience stigma surrounding mental illness and found some factors that support them in resisting the stigma and achieving psychological health. However, less research provides qualitative data involving individual experiences and insights on mental illness within this group of college students. This study, based on Linking Hearts (an internationally cooperative research-sharing project between China and Canada), was conducted in Shandong, Jinan, and aims to promote the mental health of college students by empowering interdisciplinary professionals and students. Through the research project, this study analyzed the materials from 24 focus groups, explored the understanding of mental illness and prevalence of mental illness stigma in Chinese colleges at the present time, administered a background questionnaire, and provided statistical support for some revealed themes. The final themes are as follows: mental illness is stereotyped as "severe, pathetic, and complicated"; the misconception of "visiting a psychological counselor is scary"; from public stigma to self-stigma; barriers deterring students from seeking help or accessing services; two sides of the same coin: peer support versus peer pressure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".