Exploring the occupational engagement and its impact on the well-being of young adults with self-identified anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped the normality of occupation, health, and well-being and caused a shift in the overall experience of occupational engagement, beyond the act of doing an occupation. The current study aimed to explore occupational engagement and its impact on the well-being of post-secondary young adults with anxiety and/or depression symptoms in Canada during the pandemic. Using interpretive description methodology, 10 students’ perspectives on their occupational engagement and mental health during the pandemic were explored. Data were gathered from September 2022 to January 2023 through semi-structured online interviews and analyzed using the analytical processes in interpretive description and reflexive thematic analysis. The findings showed (a) occupations “were not lived to their full potential”, (b) experiencing mixed emotional states, (c) increased self-awareness, and (d) lasting impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The affects on participants’ occupational choices, identity, and adaptation, and the perceived value, consequences, and dimensions of occupations influenced their overall health and well-being. Recognizing the impact of the pandemic on the occupational engagement of young adults can help to better understand the value of occupational science in health promotion.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it