MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1511289372

Counsellors Respond to the DSM-IV-TR.

2012· article· en· W1511289372 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tom Strong, Joaquín Gaete, Inés Sametband, Jared French, Jen Eeson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituational ethicsPsychologyMental healthSituation awarenessMedical educationPsychotherapistApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) is an administrative fact for many counsellors. This psychiatric approach to formulating client concerns runs counter to those used by counsellors of many approaches (e.g., systemic, feminist). Using an online survey of counsellors ( N = 116), invited contributions to a website blog, and in-depth interviews of 10 counsellors, we sought to better understand how the DSM-IV-TR infuenced counsellors' practice, and their responses to its expected use. From our situational analyses, we relate our findings to tensions experienced by counsellors when practicing from non-psychiatric approaches to practice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207