University Student Perspectives Negotiating Positive and Negative Mental Health on Campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored university students’ perspectives on negotiating and navigating their fluctuating mental health on one specific campus, with particular interest in their experiences of campus-based mental health services. Given the dearth of evidence across paradigms that establishes a concerning prevalence of poor mental health among post-secondary students, this study sought to give voice to students with respect to what changes they felt were most pressing. Seven semi-structured interviews were completed with undergraduate students (second through fourth year) at a mid-sized Canadian institution. Data were analyzed thematically, integrating critical and recovery-oriented social theories. Findings, from the perspective of the students themselves, generated through this process included barriers to help seeking behaviours related to formal services included perceived and actual stigma, lack of confidence in the effectiveness of services, roundabout intake processes, and the perceived need for formal diagnosis as a prerequisite to access. Facilitators to help seeking behaviour related to formal services included quickly developing a positive relationship with a counsellor and access to knowledgeable gatekeepers of mental health services. And finally, informal supports included social support, being meaningfully included and involved in the university environment, recreation, and some forms of substance use.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".