Considerations for a discourse of collaboration in counseling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper we consider a discourse of collaborative counseling practice drawing from developments in discourse and social constructionist theory. Collaboration, as we shall refer to it, speaks to negotiating and hopefully sharing initiatives, knowledge and judgment in counselor–client dialogues. However, such negotiations and sharing occur within perceived constraints associated with institutional and professional accountabilities, and are related to unequal powers seen as exercisable by clients and counselors. With these possibilities and constraints in mind, we articulate a discourse of collaborative practice based on counselors and clients sharing content and process expertise in areas often considered the sole prerogative of the counselor. Keywords: collaborationdiscoursecounseling Notes †This was a background paper for a presentation given at the Canadian Psychological Association Conference, Montreal, 11 June 2009. Inspirations from Tom Andersen, John Shotter, Ken Gergen and Harlene Anderson. 1. 'Discursive', as we will use the term, concerns people's use of language (both process- and content-related aspects of such use). It signifies attention to people's use of language in ways that empower or disempower them in constituting the realities of their experiences and relationships.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".