MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6983381094

Measuring Post-Secondary Student Resilience Through the Child & Youth Resilience Measure and the Brief Resilience Scale

2017· dissertation· en· W6983381094 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association for the Study of Adult Education
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Scale (ratio)Internal consistencyMeasure (data warehouse)Psychological resilienceConfusionReliability (semiconductor)Cronbach's alpha
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines how the Child Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM-12) and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) measure post-secondary student resilience as viewed by the University of Toronto in Toronto, Canada, which breaks down resilience into competence domains and adaptive resources. Cognitive interviews were conducted to assess item comprehension, with some items causing confusion with students. The two scales were administered in a survey instrument for a sample of 87 second- and third-year undergraduate students. Internal consistency reliability is high for both the CYRM-12 (Cronbachâ s alpha = .82) and the BRS (Cronbachâ s alpha = .83). Exploratory Factor Analysis yielded a 3-factor solution for the CYRM-12 representing family, friends and community, and a 1-factor solution for the BRS representing the ability to recover from stress. Scores from both scales indicate strengths in motivation and achievement orientation with more variability in familial relations and community belongingness. Limitations include a low response rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)→Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→