MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009508786 · doi:10.1037/a0017570

Contributions of Canadian community psychology.

2010· article· en· W2009508786 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geoffrey Nelson, Francine Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCommunity psychologyPsychoanalysisApplied psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contributions of Canadian community psychologists to ethics, theory, methodology, research, and practise are highlighted in this article. Important debates about ethical issues in psychological research and practise have been advanced by Canadian community psychologists. Canadian community psychologists have also introduced theoretical perspectives (e.g., cognitive community psychology) that have provided an impetus for research and practise, and they have broadened the focus of research in community settings with contributions to participatory action research, program evaluation, and qualitative methods. A variety of substantive contributions have been made to the research literature, especially in the areas of community mental health, prevention, and social inclusion. Finally, Canadian community psychologists have contributed to practise in terms of policy, programs, and social interventions. The article concludes with a discussion of future potential areas of contribution for Canadian community psychology. Keywords: community, mental health, evaluation, prevention, action Contemporary Canadian community psychologists have made important contributions to psychology and the public good since the formation of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) Section on Community Psychology in 1982 (Nelson, Lavoie, & Mitchell, 2007). Yet, as Walsh-Bowers (1998) observed, the contributions of Canadian community psychology receive little to no acknowledgement in reviews of psychology in Canada. Adding to the invisibility of community psychology in Canada is the fact that Canadian community psychologists tend to publish their work in the two U.S. community psychology journals (American Journal of Community Psychology [AJCP] and Journal of Community Psychology [JCP]) and the Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health ([CJCMH]; Fortin-Pellerin, Pouliot-Lapointe, Thibodeau, & Gagne, 2006), to which they have contributed substantially as editors and authors. Moreover, much of the Canadian community psychology theory and research originating in Quebec is published in French, which limits its diffusion to English speakers. The purpose of this article is to raise the visibility of Canadian community psychology amongst the broader Canadian psychological community by highlighting some of the major contributions of Canadian community psychology. Historically, community psychology in Canada, the United States, and many other parts of the world grew out of clinical psychology and community mental health (Nelson et al., 2007). Dissatisfied with an individualistic, deficit-based, treatmentoriented approach to theory and practise, community psychology strived to develop a more ecological, strengths-based, prevention-focused approach. Born in the 1960s, community psychology also emphasises social change to promote well-being and a more just world, especially for people who are disadvantaged by virtue of poverty, race, and other forms of social exclusion. To identify the contributions of Canadian community psychology, we began by identifying Canadian community psychologists who had published their work in Canadian Psychology, CJCMH, AJCP, or JCP. We then sorted the areas of contribution into five broad areas: values and ethics, theory, methodology, research, and practise. It is common in applied psychology to consider the domains of theory, research, and practise, and this approach seemed to fit the contributions of community psychology fairly well. However, we decided to break the research area down into methodology and substantive areas of research, as we believed it was important to capture some of the unique methodological approaches that have become widespread in community psychology. Finally, we decided to add the area of values and ethics, as values have long been a central focus for community psychology (Rappaport, 1977), and Canadian community psychologists have made important contributions to values and the examination of ethical issues in research and practise. …

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.480
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207