An Analysis of Trends and Themes in Canadian Student Services Articles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student services professionals have emerged as significant supportive collaborators in the construction ofvenvironments that encourage student success within Canadian post-secondary education (Hardy-Cox & Strange, 2010). In Canada, literature pertaining to student services is evolving and research from other contexts is therefore often used to inform student affairs practices in this context. Yet, without a comprehensive understanding of research that is focused on Canadian student services specifically, those working in post-secondary education are left with a scope of understanding that may not always apply to the unique contexts in which they work. The purpose of this research study is to begin mapping the landscape of re-search on Canadian student services. We review articles pertaining to student success, the student experience, and student services, that have been published in national (Canadian Journal of Higher Education) and international (Journal of College Student Development; Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice; Journal of College Student Psychotherapy; Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice; and Student Success) student services and post-secondary education journals. This scoping review documents Canadian academic research published within the student services field and describes contributing authors and their affiliations, graduate student and post-doctoral fellow involvement, provincial and territorial research clusters, research movements over the decades, institutional research contexts, and research participants’ level of education and communities/populations, as well as contextual trends and themes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.074 | 0.119 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".