MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028017090

The Dual Continuum Model of Mental Health: Investigating the Difficulties of Canadian University Student-Athletes

2023· article· en· W7028017090 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary art, education, critique
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMental illnessWorkloadPopulationMentally ill
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dual Continuum Model of Mental Health (DCM) classifies individuals, based on their mental health functioning and mental illness status, as completely mentally healthy (CMH), moderately mentally healthy (MMH), purely languishing (PL), purely mental illness (PML), and complete mental illness (CMI) (Keyes, 2005). The DCM has been shown to predict outcomes such as limitations of activities with daily living, and workdays lost or cutback in adults (Keyes, 2002). Post-secondary student-athletes are a unique population due to having the same educational demands as their non-athlete peers with the added workload associated with varsity sport (Egan, 2019). Sleep disorders and low academic achievement have been seen to be prevalent in university student-athletes (Hall et al., 2017; Ebert et al., 2018). This study investigates the relationship between the DCM classifications and difficulties with academics, sleep, intimate relationships, and other social relationships in Canadian university student-athletes. The ACHA’s NCHA 2019 Canadian Reference Group was analyzed. Chi Square tests revealed significant grouping differences across DCM classifications and difficulty with academics (p

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContemporary art, education, critiqueFrench-language works237,207