MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089512138 · doi:10.1093/deafed/enr002

The Differences in Our Similarities

2011· article· en· W2089512138 on OpenAlexaff
Cathy J. Chovaz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ten years ago, the first edition of this book gently surprised the clinical community. It was the first single volume to present mental health perspectives of diverse subcomponents of the deaf community. Clinicians who read that volume reorganized their understanding of deaf people as a singular homogeneous group and began to appreciate the wide diversity within and between groups who are deaf. It was perhaps the first formal nudge to conceptualize the word “deaf” as belonging to different cultures, different groups, and different conditions. As editor, Irene Leigh, through her exemplary work, has now raised the bar of excellence (which should be our clinical standard) even higher. In this revised and updated second edition, readers are no longer nudged but are startled into reconceptualizing, reorganizing, and, in some instances, learning for the first time about the subtle and not-so-subtle subcomponents of the deaf community. The degree to which one feels somewhat startled is perhaps reflective of the fact that psychotherapy with the deaf community has substantially lagged behind delivery of service to other groups and also that there are still relatively few of us out there doing it. As the first (and so far the only) deaf clinical psychologist in Canada, I was both energized by this book and ashamed by my lack of knowledge regarding diversity. Some of it generates a “how did I not know that?” reaction, whereas other details represent information that I have not been exposed to or perhaps never sought information about before. This book needs to be on the bookshelf of every clinician working with deaf clients and not just gathering dust. It begins with a helpful review of service delivery highlighting the ethical issues that are relevant and instrumental in working with deaf clients as well as the diversity of consumer (deaf patients) knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. Of particular importance are the issues to consider from the perspective of the deaf clinician or therapist in working with deaf clients. The second section examines psychotherapy as implemented with deaf women; lesbian, gay, and bisexual deaf individuals; hearing children of deaf parents; and people with Usher syndrome. The third section examines the critical issues brought forth in psychotherapy with deaf clients who are African American, American Indian, Asian American, and Latino. Although these chapters are written from an American perspective, there is much to be learned for clinicians and therapists from other countries and continents such as Canada and Europe in terms of the importance of cultural knowledge and sensitivity. The final section provides informative and rich descriptions of other deaf populations including deaf college students, recipients of cochlear implants, and deaf elderly clients. This book closes with a thought-provoking description of dialectical behavior therapy as an intervention option. The underlying theme throughout is the idea that deafness may unite people on some level; yet within a therapeutic context, attention must be paid to critical differences that may differentiate. Throughout this book, there are numerous and detailed client descriptions and narratives of therapeutic examples. These examples bring to life not only the rich knowledge these experienced authors are sharing with us but also the diverse tapestry woven into the humanity that represents the deaf community. Buy this book, read it, and then read it again.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.003

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducationSame topicParanormal Experiences and BeliefsFrench-language works237,207