Mental Health and Foundational Academic Behaviours: Pieces of the Academic Success Puzzle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interplay between mental health and academic behaviours has been understudied. This study examined the relationship between foundational academic behaviours (e.g., attending class and meeting assignment deadlines), student mental health and well-being, and academic performance. Participants consisted of 229 students (52.6% female) who participated in a first-year introductory learning-to-learn course. Findings from structural equation modelling indicated: (a) higher levels of foundational academic behaviours predicted higher GPA, (b) higher levels of emotional well-being predicted higher levels of foundational academic behaviours and higher GPA, and (c) foundational academic behaviours mediated the relationship between emotional well-being and GPA. Findings affirm the integral role of mental health in academic performance and highlight the mediating role of foundational academic behaviours in this relationship. The association between emotional well-being and foundational academic behaviours underscores the multifaceted nature of academic performance and the importance of considering both mental health and foundational academic behaviours in academic success. Findings from this study suggest that managing behaviours that facilitate engagement in academic tasks, and mental health as a potential internal condition for learning, are both important pieces to the academic success puzzle.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".