MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967886189 · doi:10.1080/21650993.2003.9755916

A Critical Asian Response to Issues and Debates in Cross Cultural Counselling

2003· article· en· W1967886189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kam‐shing Yip

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismCross-culturalGlobalizationGender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceSocial workCultural diversityPedagogyAnthropologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross cultural and multicultural counselling are regarded as the fourth force of counselling in western multicultural countries like the USA and Canada. Its development is affected by the drastic development of multiculturalism and globalisation of economy. In this essay, the writer tries to discuss controversies and debates in cross cultural counselling. Its development stimulates social workers and counsellors to think about the discrepancies and differences between the Asian traditional cultures and the Eurocentric American culture. Instead of following the western counselling models, social workers and counsellors in Asian countries may have to develop Asicentric counselling models in 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.338 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal of Social Work and DevelopmentSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207