MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2009508786 · doi:10.1037/a0017570

Contributions of Canadian community psychology.

2010· article· en· W2009508786 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Geoffrey Nelson, Francine Lavoie

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueCommunity Health and Development
Établissements canadiensUniversité LavalWilfrid Laurier University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyCommunity psychologyPsychoanalysisApplied psychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The contributions of Canadian community psychologists to ethics, theory, methodology, research, and practise are highlighted in this article. Important debates about ethical issues in psychological research and practise have been advanced by Canadian community psychologists. Canadian community psychologists have also introduced theoretical perspectives (e.g., cognitive community psychology) that have provided an impetus for research and practise, and they have broadened the focus of research in community settings with contributions to participatory action research, program evaluation, and qualitative methods. A variety of substantive contributions have been made to the research literature, especially in the areas of community mental health, prevention, and social inclusion. Finally, Canadian community psychologists have contributed to practise in terms of policy, programs, and social interventions. The article concludes with a discussion of future potential areas of contribution for Canadian community psychology. Keywords: community, mental health, evaluation, prevention, action Contemporary Canadian community psychologists have made important contributions to psychology and the public good since the formation of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) Section on Community Psychology in 1982 (Nelson, Lavoie, & Mitchell, 2007). Yet, as Walsh-Bowers (1998) observed, the contributions of Canadian community psychology receive little to no acknowledgement in reviews of psychology in Canada. Adding to the invisibility of community psychology in Canada is the fact that Canadian community psychologists tend to publish their work in the two U.S. community psychology journals (American Journal of Community Psychology [AJCP] and Journal of Community Psychology [JCP]) and the Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health ([CJCMH]; Fortin-Pellerin, Pouliot-Lapointe, Thibodeau, & Gagne, 2006), to which they have contributed substantially as editors and authors. Moreover, much of the Canadian community psychology theory and research originating in Quebec is published in French, which limits its diffusion to English speakers. The purpose of this article is to raise the visibility of Canadian community psychology amongst the broader Canadian psychological community by highlighting some of the major contributions of Canadian community psychology. Historically, community psychology in Canada, the United States, and many other parts of the world grew out of clinical psychology and community mental health (Nelson et al., 2007). Dissatisfied with an individualistic, deficit-based, treatmentoriented approach to theory and practise, community psychology strived to develop a more ecological, strengths-based, prevention-focused approach. Born in the 1960s, community psychology also emphasises social change to promote well-being and a more just world, especially for people who are disadvantaged by virtue of poverty, race, and other forms of social exclusion. To identify the contributions of Canadian community psychology, we began by identifying Canadian community psychologists who had published their work in Canadian Psychology, CJCMH, AJCP, or JCP. We then sorted the areas of contribution into five broad areas: values and ethics, theory, methodology, research, and practise. It is common in applied psychology to consider the domains of theory, research, and practise, and this approach seemed to fit the contributions of community psychology fairly well. However, we decided to break the research area down into methodology and substantive areas of research, as we believed it was important to capture some of the unique methodological approaches that have become widespread in community psychology. Finally, we decided to add the area of values and ethics, as values have long been a central focus for community psychology (Rappaport, 1977), and Canadian community psychologists have made important contributions to values and the examination of ethical issues in research and practise. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,256
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,141
Tête enseignante GPT0,480
Écart entre enseignants0,338 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneMême sujetCommunity Health and DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207