Bridging Belonging: Analyzing Student Perceptions of Inclusivity at Queen’s University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With a rapidly evolving demographic in the student body at Queen’s University, this study explores the ways students conceptualize inclusivity, both positively and negatively, and examines its implications in their academic and social experiences. This study was developed using the EDIIA framework defining inclusivity as the degree individuals from diverse backgrounds feel welcomed, respected, and supported within the Queen’s community. Methodology: A survey-based observational study was completed, sampling 50+ students from the Queen’s University community from all degree programs and years of study. The survey was shared online using Instagram and in-person at the TEDxQueensu Conference and Student Life Centre. Students were asked to anonymously complete the survey using Microsoft Forms. The survey consisted of 16 questions both qualitative and quantitative, incorporating Likert Scales and open-ended responses. The survey was designed to assess student demographic factors as well as their sense of inclusivity within Queen’s university. Results: Preliminary analysis indicated mean participant age was 19 years, with a modal age of 18 years. The most represented faculties were Health Sciences, and Arts and Science, with a notable proportion of respondents identifying as second-generation university students. Anticipated themes include faculty-based variations in inclusivity perceptions, cultural background influences on social belonging, and disparities in academic engagement. Responses will be analyzed to assess frequency and impact of experiences with microaggressions, exclusionary behaviors, and barriers to cross-cultural interactions on campus inclusivity. Significance: By identifying both systemic strengths and areas of exclusion related to inclusivity at Queen’s, we hope our findings will serve as a catalyst for driving meaningful change that bridges existing gaps within the campus community. Beyond highlighting student perspectives, this research has the potential to inform targeted EDIIA initiatives, reshape institutional policies, and drive cultural transformation in the Queen’s community, ultimately fostering a more supportive and safe environment for all students.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".