A Cross-Sectional Study Investigating Canadian and Australian Adolescents’ Perceived Experiences of COVID-19: Gender Differences and Mental Health Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus (COVID-19) disease pandemic has been associated with adverse psychological outcomes. This cross-cultural study (N = 1326, 71% female) aimed to investigate Canadian and Australian adolescents’ subjective experiences of COVID-19, gender differences, and psychological implications. Mixed-methods analyses were used to examine differences in COVID-19 experiences and mental health outcomes between country and gender in a Canadian (N = 913, 78% female) and an Australian sample (N = 413, 57% female) of adolescents. Canadian adolescents reported increased COVID-19 discussions and more concerns related to their COVID-19 experiences compared to Australian adolescents. Girls consistently reported more concerns related to COVID-19 and poorer psychological outcomes compared to boys. School lockdown for the Canadian sample may have played a role in these country differences. Further, girls might be at significantly more risk for mental health concerns during COVID-19, which should be considered in adolescent mental health initiatives during the pandemic. Although school disruption and separation of peers due to the pandemic likely have a role in adolescent perceived stressors and mental health, the differences between Canadian and Australian adolescents were less clear and future investigations comparing more objective pre-COVID-19 data to current data are needed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".