Abstract 5: The Devil is in the Details: Lessons Learned from a Mental Health Intervention Pilot Study with USPORTS Student-athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation describes the development, delivery, and assessment of a pilot project of a student-athlete specific mental health intervention. Mental health of student-athletes in Canada is a significant concern. The current project was part of a long-term partnership with the Canadian Mental Health Association and university athletics and student support services in a mid-sized Canadian university. The intervention recognized mental health needs of USPORTS athletes (Giovanetti et al., 2016) and limitations of mental interventions in sport (Breslin et al., 2022). CMHA’s Talk Today program was implemented with two randomly assigned varsity teams while two other teams acted as a wait-listed control group. Student-athletes in both conditions completed an online survey package at four time points over six months. Outcomes included mental health literacy, stigma, help seeking, and psychological distress. While there was no significant effect of the Talk Today program on any outcomes, summary assessment responses from participants and anecdotal feedback from student services suggested that the program was influential and well-received. In addition to the statistical analyses, the lessons learned from such an intensive, multiple partner pilot project were quite valuable. For example, characteristics of the context (institutional priority of mental health awareness), sample (relatively high personal history of mental health issues in control group), and design (response fatigue, participant contamination) all may have impacted results and implications. We believe that the knowledge learned throughout this process that can be used to inform future projects.
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 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".