Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to use the concepts of silos and to reflect on the achievements and status quo of psychology and related health disciplines, to extract a vision, and to make recommendations for psychology as a sustainable health profession. Through the lens of the silo concept, the organization of health-care funding and psychiatric service delivery is reviewed. Next, the nature of training (clinical vs. research skills) and the extent of training for varying health professions are described. Emerging from these reviews are 3 recommendations for the future of our profession: (a) to keep challenging the silo nature of funding for health professionals; (b) to create strong bridges between the health professions and the public via the building of effective relationships; and (c) for psychology to position itself in the dual role of highly trained clinical service provider that also offers leadership in clinical research, evaluation, continuing education, program development, and program evaluation for the purpose of improving all levels of health care in Canada.Keywords: psychology, health-care funding, professional development, clinical competenciesResumeLe but de cet article est, au moyen des concepts de « silo » (cloisonnement) et de « pont », de reflechir aux realisations et a la situation actuelle de la psychologie et des disciplines connexes, en vue de degager une vision et de formuler des recommandations visant a assurer la durabilite de la psychologie en tant que profession de la sante. Au moyen du concept du silo sont examines le financement des soins de sante et la prestation des services psychiatriques. Ensuite sont decrites la nature de la formation (en soins cliniques vs en recherche) et l'etendue de la formation selon les diverses professions de la sante. Ces analyses permettent de formuler 3 recommandations concernant l'avenir de la profession : a) continuer de remettre en question la nature cloisonnee du financement des professionnels de la sante; b) raffermir les ponts entre les professions de la sante et le public en construisant des relations efficaces; c) positionner la psychologie dans le double role de fournisseur de services hautement specialises qui peut assurer la direction dans la recherche clinique, l'evaluation, la formation continue, l'elaboration de programmes et l'evaluation de programmes en vue d'ameliorer tous les volets des soins de sante au Canada.Mots-cles : psychologie, financement des soins de sante, formation professionnelle, competences cliniques.This manuscript is based on the Presidential Address of the author delivered on June 5, 2014 at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Psychological Association in Vancouver. The purpose of this article is to use the concepts of silos and to reflect on the achievements and status quo of psychology and related health disciplines, to extract a vision, and to make recommendations for psychology as a sustainable health profession. The content is a blend of facts and personal opinions and is largely seen through a set of glasses colored by more than 3 decades of training and experience in clinical psychology as a scientist-practitioner. To avoid redundancy and embed this manuscript in other relevant literature, I strongly urge readers to familiarize themselves with a report commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Association and released in 2013 that reviews the status quo of psychiatric care systems in Canada and elucidates the role that psychologists play and then makes recommendations on how psychologists can access clearly earmarked budget envelopes for their services (Cohen & Peachey, 2014; Peachey, Hicks, & Adam, 2013). The current manuscript extends the report of Peachey and colleagues with the intention to raise awareness of our profession's status quo and to create a suggested roadmap for shaping and securing the profession's future.Characteristics of Silos and BridgesSometimes insights are made sticky through the use of metaphors; here, these metaphors are silos and bridges. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".