Post-secondary student perspectives about how to support student resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is increasingly recognized that resilience can significantly help post- secondary students to mitigate the response to stress and adversity. The discussion of how to inculcate resiliency is often left to academic leaders and service providers. However, one of the voices that has been relatively less heard in the development of relevant resources is that of students themselves. The current study surveyed university students (N = 281) and assessed both the internal and external resources that students believed were important for the development of resilience. Participants rated personal resources somewhat more highly than external resources. In particular, the personal attributes of self-care, persistence and executive functioning were rated as key variables in the development of resilience. The study also compared subgroups of participants, to examine the influence of individual differences on the perceived importance of these resources. As examples, women rated several personal resources higher than men, and international students, students of colour, and Indigenous students rated access to cultural/spiritual resources higher than their comparison group. Study limitations were noted, but it was recommended that post-secondary institutions take into account student perspectives when developing campus resources. This study provides suggestions about which types of resources are most important for different types of students.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".