Student Perceptions of Carleton University Mental Health Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Honours thesis is an exploration of student perceptions of Carleton University’s mental health services. There are a variety of issues facing emerging adults, such as the transition to post-secondary education, changing social roles, and difficulties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and online learning. These factors increased the need for effective mental health services. The research questions revolved around if participants accessed mental health services, if they found them helpful, and what stopped participants from accessing them. The data were examined using the thematic analysis. Results were collected during COVID-19 restrictions and revealed that most students did not access mental health services. Students who did access these services accessed two forms of mental health services: the disability centre and counselling services. The disability centre was largely found to be helpful, whereas opinions of counselling services were mixed. Forty-three percent of participants who did not access mental health services stated this was because they accessed services elsewhere or did not need them. This demonstrates that at least some of the remaining 57% may have not been able to access services when they needed them. This Honour’s thesis addresses how these services can better meet student needs and improve accessibility. This is novel research, which has not yet been discussed, which provides important information about improving these vital services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".