An appreciative inquiry towards school-based mindfulness in the Comox Valley School District
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wellness tools that have proven to promote school-based mental health (SBMH) exist in schools, yet students continue to report a decline in mental health. Evidence illustrating how educators’ professional experiences influence students’ access to mental health resources is needed to help understand how to advance the promotion of student educational experiences. This study utilized the Inner Explorer mindfulness program as a wellness tool example that promotes SBMH. Comox Valley School District was chosen as this research’s case study considering their implementation of the Inner Explorer program as a district-wide student resource. This study applied qualitative case study as its methodology and data was collected through written and spoken interviews with six focal primary and secondary school educators from the district. The theoretical framework, Appreciative Inquiry, helped make meaning of the thematic findings that were analyzed. Insights about educators’ experiences of delivering Inner Explorer and their perceptions of the quality of student mental health because of the program were collected. Results discovered that SBMH programs that are financially accessible, user-friendly, contextually compatible for schools, and industry and student-endorsed were strengths that made these programs approachable to educators to adopt into their practices. Advancing and sustaining industry potentials and strengths in SBMH promotional efforts are ideal to support students develop their mental health quality, emotional literacy, and resiliency as self-sustainable and lifelong competencies. Embracing the Whole Child approach, supporting educator wellness, and providing educators with the knowledge to optimize the delivery of Inner Explorer was needed. Considering education’s critical ability to foster positive SBMH, this study’s findings were significant as they informed about the evolution of the Canadian education system and civic development, as well as the overarching progression of student mental health promotion. This research study was awarded the British Columbia Graduate Scholarship.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".