Facilitating Mobility for Psychologists Through a Competency-Based Approach for Regulation and Accreditation: The Canadian Experiment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionals in Canada are regulated by provincial/territorial bodies that have their own requirements for licensing and registration. Because these requirements vary tremendously across jurisdictions, the ability of Canadians to work anywhere in the country is greatly limited. In response to pressures for greater mobility, federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed in 1994 to take steps to remove or reduce barriers to the movement of workers in Canada. Under this agreement, regulatory bodies within each jurisdiction were asked to comply voluntarily with the obligations of the agreement or else the government would adopt and maintain measures to ensure such compliance. To address the issue of mobility, Canadian psychologists have taken a competency approach. This paper presents the template that provided a common framework or language for the mutual recognition of competencies for the purpose of mobility in Canada and the results of this process as reflected in the Mutual Recognition Agreement signed by the Canadian regulatory bodies of psychologists in June 2001. The paper also highlights the role of accreditation of training programs in the recognition of professional psychologists for the purpose of mobility and the influence that training programs may have on standards for licensure or registration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it