What are the opportunities and challenges for Canadian psychology?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A recent issue of Canadian Psychology was dedicated to the topic of opportunities and challenges for psychology in Canada, and included papers that addressed a number of different issues, including, for example, lobbying, professional identity, ethics, the training of psychologists, the public image of the profession, and the use of new technologies (Counsell, Cribbie, & Harlow, 2016; Drapeau, Holmqvist, & Piotrowski, 2016; Hartman, Fergus, & Reid, 2016; Karesa & McBride, 2016; Campbell et al., 2016; O'Neill, 2016; Roy, 2016; Votta-Bleeker, Tiessen, & Murdoch, 2016).However, Canadian psychologists offer a variety of services to a diverse Canadian population in settings such as academia, the hospital system, and independent practice. This diversity means that psychologists working in different areas, whether they differ by geographical area or area of practice, may have varying needs and concerns. The goal of the current paper was to identify and understand the challenges and opportunities that psychologists across the country and discipline perceive in their field today. Specifically, we were interested in answering the following question: what are the most important challenges and opportunities that exist in Canadian psychology today? Our intention was not to conduct a study addressing this question; rather, we wanted to begin a discussion with colleagues who have leadership roles in psychology in Canada. In order to begin reflecting on possible answers to this question, we contacted the president/director of each provincial/territorial association (n = 10) and provincial/ territorial regulatory body (n = 11), as well as the chair of each CPA section (n = 32), by e-mail, asking them what they considered to be the greatest opportunities and challenges in their province or area of specialisation, respectively. Five provincial/territorial associations, two provincial/territorial regulatory bodies, and 23 CPA section chairs provided responses to our e-mail. Five themes concerning opportunities and five themes concerning challenges were extracted based on similarities across all responses. Here is what these colleagues had to say.What Are the Opportunities for Canadian Psychologists?Interdisciplinary TeamsSeveral of our colleagues noted the growing number of opportunities to work in interdisciplinary For example, Juanita Mureika, Chair of the CPA Section on Educational and School Psychology, indicated that the role of school psychologists expanded dramatically, and emphasis on 'routine assessment,' usually defined by the administration of a few tests, has been replaced by a focus on working on multi-disciplinary teams. This emphasis on working in interdisciplinary teams may provide clients with more comprehensive treatment and assessment. In addition to conferring benefits upon clients, our colleagues noted that collaboration among professionals provides benefits to psychologists themselves. Dr. Deanne Simms, Chair of the CPA Section for Psychologists in Hospitals and Health Centres suggested that:. . . psychologists working in hospitals and health centres are in a setting wherein they share patients with other health care providers. This atmosphere of shared care allows psychologists to derive peer support from colleagues to help guard against isolation, stagnation, and burnout.Preventing burnout through working in interdisciplinary teams may in turn provide clients with improved care, because psychologists will be better able to handle challenges that can arise in their professional and personal lives. Indeed, clinicians were not the only respondents to note the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, Dr. Manuel Riemer (member of the Section for Community Psychology) explained that working in partnership with representatives from the community, industry, and government is no longer an exception but has, in many ways, become the expectation for competitive research grants. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,059 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,028 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,003 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».