MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Critical Issues in Cross‐Cultural Counseling Research: Case Example of an Ongoing Project

2003· article· es· W2072152132 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Multicultural Counseling and Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHumanitiesCross-culturalSociologyCultural issuesPedagogyPolitical scienceCultural diversityMedical educationAnthropologyArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross‐cultural counseling practice is characterized by a proliferation of opinions without empirical substantiation. Most research in this area is based on survey or analog studies that do not address practice issues in terms of outcome or actual clinical process. The authors examine issues in cross‐cultural counseling and research, using illustrations from an ongoing study. El consejo intercultural se caracteriza por medio de la generación de opiniones proliferas sin justificación empírica. Muchos estudios en este campo se basan en encuestas or estudios analógicos que no se dirigen a las cuestiones de la práctica, en cuanto a los resultados o al verdadero proceso clínico. Los autores examinan temas en las investigaciones del consejo intercultural, utilizando ejemplos de un proyecto actual.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.300 · 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