MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Accreditation Standards for University and College Counseling Centers

2003· article· en· W2040805503 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vivian Boyd, Edward Hattauer, Irvin W. Brandel, Nancy B. Buckles, Charles O. Davidshofer, Spencer Deakin, Charlene Erskine, George Hurley, Linda Locher, Géraldine Piorkowski, Ronald B. Simono, James D. Spivack, Catherine Steel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Counseling & Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationMedical educationMedicinePsychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accreditation standards outlined in the article are used by the International Association of Counseling Services as the basis for the formal accreditation of college and university counseling programs throughout the United States, Canada, and Australia. They reflect the program elements and practice standards that are deemed essential in a counseling center that provides high‐quality services to students.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.031

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations42
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Counseling & DevelopmentSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207