The current situation of college students' mental health under the background of building ideological and political information database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to enhance the mental health literacy of college students, strengthen the effectiveness of ideological and political education, and cultivate well-rounded socialist builders and successors. In terms of methodology, an ecological ideological and political course system for "Mental Health Education for College Students" was constructed, innovatively adopting a student-led resource co-construction model. The Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) was used to assess the mental health of both experimental and control groups of college students. The data showed that the scores of freshmen on the 10 dimensions of SCL-90 and the average total score of SCL-90 were significantly higher than the asymptomatic threshold (1 point), and the total score of SCL-90 was also higher than the asymptomatic threshold (90 points), indicating that some freshmen showed multidimensional health conditions and the overall mental health level of freshmen was relatively low. The experimental group scored significantly lower than the control group in dimensions such as somatization, hostility, and paranoia, confirming the intervention efficacy of the ecological ideological and political course on mental health. In the comparison based on demographic variables, it was found that female participants scored higher than male participants in the depression dimension. Participants with left-behind experiences scored higher than those without such experiences in the dimensions of paranoia, psychoticism, and additional items. Based on these findings, six optimization paths are proposed: deepening the organic integration and practical transformation of ideological and political elements in courses; establishing a long-term mechanism for psychological support for special groups; improving mechanisms for fostering learning motivation and self-efficacy; building a dynamic process evaluation system; developing a multi-modal teaching resource matrix; and implementing a dual-qualified faculty development program for psychology and ideological and political education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".