A continuum of “normal” experience: Positioning mental health struggles as human experiences in the university context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores how university students with mental health struggles engage in “illness‐identity” work, the process by which an individual resituates their self in relation to their illness, using a phenomenological approach. Grounded in 24 semi‐structured interviews with Canadian university students between the ages of 18 and 24 years who self‐identify as experiencing mental health struggles, I argue that students do not perform illness‐identity work by making the “I Am” or “I Have” illness identity statements commonly cited in the anthropological literature. Instead, these students focus on the phenomenological content of their struggles making what I call “I Experience” statements. In doing so these students normalize their struggles by understanding them as fluid and ephemeral experiences which exist as a continuum, refuting a construction of mental health struggles as discrete entities objectively present or not in the individual body.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| 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".