MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501106742 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1650

Qualitative Research in Counseling: A Reflection for Novice Counselor Researchers

2015· article· en· W1501106742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Randolph Bowers, Victor Minichiello, David Plummer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchCounselor educationFormative assessmentMedical educationPsychologyEngineering ethicsPedagogySociologyHigher educationMedicineSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Counselors practice in a wide range of disciplines, but also represent a distinct discipline separate from medicine, psychology, and social work. Particularly in countries like Australia, Canada, and the Asia Pacific nations, as a relatively new field, counseling is taking up the challenges of encouraging a research culture that can both critique and support clinical practice and counselor education. This paper is thus written to support novice counselor researchers, and to inspire an emerging research culture through sharing formative experiences and lessons learned during a qualitative research project exploring minority issues in counseling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.751
GPT teacher head0.704
Teacher spread0.047 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207