MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492273415 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v45i1.184262

Tailoring University Counselling Services to Aboriginal and International Students: Lessons from Native and International Student Centres at a Canadian University

2015· article· en· W1492273415 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, Kathryn Holleran, Marilyn Samuels

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryNorthlands College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamEthnocentrismPracticumMedical educationCulturally sensitivePedagogySociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critics have suggested that the practice of psychology is based on ethnocentric assumptions that do not necessarily apply to non-European cultures, resulting in the underutilization of counselling centres by minority populations. Few practical, culturally appropriate alternatives have flowed from these concerns. This paper reviews experiences from a doctoral-level practicum in counselling psychology that targeted aboriginal and international university students outside of the mainstream counselling services at a western Canadian university over a two-year period. It recommends an integrated approach, combining assessment, learning strategy skills, and counselling skills while incorporating community development methodology. The paper concludes with recommendations for counsellor training that will enhance services to both international and aboriginal students.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Higher EducationSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207