MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405674810 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2024.18570

A Multi-Year Study of First-Year Engineering Student Well-being at a Large Canadian University

2024· article· en· W4405674810 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Ostafichuk, Alireza Bagherzadeh, Carol P. Jaeger, Jon Nakane

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationEngineeringEngineering ethicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A five-year study into student well-being at a large Canadian university is presented. Through weekly surveys tracking student well-being with the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEBMWS), a gradual but persistent drop in student well-being over the academic year is consistently observed. Average well-being on WEBMWS over the five years corresponds to students feeling optimistic, useful, relaxed, etc. “some of the time,” and is consistent from year to year. Student rankings of key stressors each week reveal academics (high grades, workload, competitive program entry, and passing) dominate concerns, while stressors related to transitioning to first-year university are an order of magnitude less prevalent. Clear and statistically significant differences are noted between different student groups, with men tending to report better well-being than both women and non-binary students, with international students reporting slightly better well-being than Canadian students, and students with a mental disability reporting lower well-being than those without.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207