MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911079757

Using Multivariate Concept-Mapping for Examining Client Understandings of Counselling

2009· article· en· W1911079757 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationPerspective (graphical)TrustworthinessQualitative researchPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologySociologyArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many qualitative research methods inadvertently examine the client’s perspective through the lens of researcher- or counsellor-derived constructs and categories, thereby blurring practitioner and client perspectives. This article provides a step-by-step guide for conducting multivariate concept-mapping (MVCM), a mixed-methods research design that can be used to provide more trustworthy accounts of the client’s experience. Until there is a greater accumulation of counselling research using methods that allow clients to categorize the content they provide, this article can serve as an impetus for counsellors to carefully scrutinize the categorization-based research on the client’s perspective that they use to inform their 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.157 · 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