MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401163378 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2024.2382438

Psychological distress among Canadian postsecondary students: a repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Campus Wellbeing Survey (CCWS) between spring 2020–2023

2024· article· en· W4401163378 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Fagan, Kelly Wunderlich, Guy Faulkner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressClinical psychologyPsychologyMultilevel modelPsychological distressSexual orientationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cross-sectional studyMental healthDemographyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To examine trends in self-reported psychological distress among Canadian postsecondary students between 2020 and 2023. Participants and Methods: Using data collected from postsecondary students (n = 103,936) through the Canadian Campus Wellbeing Survey (CCWS), multilevel regression models were fitted to determine how distress levels, as measured by the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, differed across six-time points of the CCWS. Results: Across the cycles, students reported high levels of distress (mean across cycles = 26.16, SD = 8.61). Considering the impact of time on distress, when compared to pre-COVID-19 pandemic, Fall 2020 (β = 1.4, p < .001), Spring 2021 (β = 1.2, p < .001), Spring 2022 (β = 1.6, p < .001), and Spring 2023 (β = 0.80, p < .017) had significantly higher levels of distress. Distress levels were associated with ancestry, age, gender, and sexual orientation. Conclusion: It is imperative to develop strategies and allocate resources to address the high levels of psychological distress among Canadian postsecondary 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207