Support seeking on campus: A qualitative study of the unique experiences of racialized university students.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite experiencing greater rates of mental health challenges, racialized postsecondary students are accessing campus-based supports at lower rates than their White peers. As much of the existing research pertaining to racialized students’ support-seeking at postsecondary institutions has focused on the barriers to access, little is known about the experiences of racialized students who overcome these barriers and access support. In the present study, the unique experiences of racialized students accessing wellness and mental health supports on a large university campus in Canada were examined. Thirty-one racialized undergraduate students completed semistructured interviews, which were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis with intersectionality as a guiding theoretical framework. Five themes were developed under the overarching theme that “Racialized students navigate a mental health system built without them in mind.” This study has implications for creating more inclusive mental health supports on postsecondary campuses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement There is some evidence that racialized postsecondary students have poorer experiences of campus-based mental health services than their nonracialized peers. The results of this study indicate that racialized students experience common barriers, challenges, and benefits associated with campus mental health services, as well as unique factors related to their identities as racialized people. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".