MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045531276 · doi:10.1080/14733141003770713

A qualitative study of client experiences of working with novice counsellors

2010· article· en· W2045531276 on OpenAlex
Jack De Stefano, Varda Mann-Feder, Nicola Gazzola

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCounselling and Psychotherapy Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychologyQualitative researchPerceptionInterpersonal communicationMedical educationQualitative analysisInterpersonal relationshipApplied psychologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims : This paper reports on a qualitative analysis of written accounts by clients who participated in a counselling relationship with beginning‐level trainees. The purpose of the study was to explore how clients experience the process of counselling with novice practitioners. Method : Consensual qualitative research was used for data analysis. Findings : Three general thematic categories were identified – client perceptions of self in counselling; client perceptions of the counsellor; and client perception of the counselling process. Conclusions : Overall, the findings suggest that these clients saw the interpersonal qualities and skills of the counsellor as major contributors to their experience. Implications : Clinical training of novices should start by developing the interpersonal and collaborative skills of trainees.

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 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.305 · 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