MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006071537 · doi:10.1080/03069885.2010.482395

Unconscious processes in a career counselling case: an action-theoretical perspective

2010· article· en· W2006071537 on OpenAlexafffund
Brenda Yaari Dyer, Maria Chiara Pizzorno, QU Ke-jia, Ladislav Valach, Sheila K. Marshall, Richard A. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Guidance and Counselling · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsUnconscious mindAction (physics)Perspective (graphical)PsychologyVocational educationSession (web analytics)Process (computing)Social psychologyRecallIdentity (music)Career counselingApplied psychologyPsychotherapistPedagogyCognitive psychologyPsychoanalysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Although clients and counsellors can often account for their actions in counselling, sometimes the link between the action taken and the larger goal is not apparent. This article accounts for counterproductive, paradoxical actions within the counselling process by addressing unconscious processes as links between immediate actions and larger projects. A career counselling case is presented, the data of which were gathered and analysed through the action-project method. This method includes a video-supported recall procedure, called the self-confrontation interview, as a research and practice means of accessing unconscious aspects of the inter-subjective action of counselling. The complexity of career counselling is illustrated as multiple goals and projects, both conscious and unconscious, are manifest in a single session. Implications for practice include the primacy of the relationship project in career counselling as the relationship project not only contains but reflects other projects such as identity and vocational projects.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Guidance and CounsellingSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207