MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Toward a Feminist and Multicultural Model of Consultation and Advocacy

2006· article· es· W2077696958 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Ann Hoffman, Elaine L. Phillips, Debra A. Noumair, Sandra L. Shullman, Carol Geisler, Jacque Gray, Judith Homer, Sharon G. Horne, Diana L. Paulk, Randa R. Remer, Shelagh Robinson, Indra A. Rocha-Singh, Diane J. Tinsley, Rebecca L. Toporek, Donna Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multicultural Counseling and Development · 2006
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDawson College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismSociologyHumanitiesTriad (sociology)PsychologyPedagogyLibrary scienceSocial sciencePhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors present core ideas or constructs that might be integral to a feminist and multicultural model of consultation. According to the model, the structure of consultation is (a) nonhierarchical and (b) an open triad (incorporating extrapersonal and outside factors). The process of consultation is (c) culturally responsive and (d) empowering. The role of the consultant is as (e) an agent for change and (f) an advocate for both the client and the system. Los autores y sus ideas centrales presente o construyentes quizás sea integral para una feminista y un modelo de la consulta multicultural. Según el modelo, la estructura de la consulta es (a) nonhierarchical y (b) una tríada abierta (incorporando extrapersonal y factores exteriores). El proceso de la consulta es (c) culturalmente receptiva y (d) autorizada. El papel del consultor es como (e) un agente para el cambio y (f) un defensor para el cliente y el sistema.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.038
Scholarly communication0.0160.011
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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