MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ethical Consideration of Counselor Education Teaching Strategies

2006· article· en· W2046582051 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick J. Morrissette, Shannon Gadbois

Bibliographic record

VenueCounseling and Values · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)PsychologyEthical issuesCounselor educationEthical standardsEngineering ethicsAction (physics)Medical educationHigher educationPedagogyMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Counselor educators rely on a variety of teaching strategies to augment clinical instruction and enhance student learning. Such strategies include action methods, audio/video material, and self-exploration. While using these strategies, educators are responsible for remaining sensitive to fundamental ethical issues, varied student needs, and academic/professional standards. Despite appearing straightforward and routine, this aspect of counselor education requires ongoing appraisal to ensure adherence to ethical guidelines, program integrity, and student well-being. This article reviews various teaching strategies, discusses ethical implications associated with each strategy, and provides preliminary guidelines to enhance counselor educator ethical practice and student well-being.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCounseling and ValuesSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207