Participant Experiences in Student Recovery Programs in Canada: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student recovery programs are an emerging trend across university campuses in Canada, yet little is known about the experiences of students who utilize these programs. Canada’s first student recovery program launched in 2019, with six additional launching shortly thereafter. The current study offers a first look at the student experience in recovery programs at the first Canadian institutions to offer recovery support on campus. We used qualitative methods to examine individual recovery trajectories, program participation, stigma, barriers to recovery on campus, and the impact of a campus-based recovery program on various areas of their lives. Our findings highlight three main themes: (i) inclusivity and diversity of the programs, (ii) increasing recovery capital and dimensions of well-being, and (iii) reducing barriers to recovery on campus. The results inform how Canadian student recovery programs meet the needs of their students and identify areas for improvement using a recovery-informed lens to center the lived experiences of students in recovery. Findings from this initial study may drive the development of future student recovery programs at Canadian institutions and inform new initiatives by existing programs outside of Canada.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".