MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108074786

Supervisors-in-Training: The Experience of Group-Format Supervision-of-Supervision

2014· article· en· W2108074786 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jack De Stefano, Nicola Gazzola, Cristelle Audet, Anne Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisorPsychologyCurriculumContext (archaeology)Medical educationQualitative researchPedagogyMedicineSociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using procedures inspired by Consensual Qualitative Research methodology (CQR), we examined the transcripts of 10 doctoral students who had been interviewed about their experiences participating in a supervision-of-supervision (SOS) group while currently providing supervision to master’s-level counsellors-in-training. Five categories were identified: (a) SOS as a valuable context for professional development, (b) the benefits of SOS, (c) the role of the supervisor in SOS, (d) hindering aspects of group-format SOS, and (e) frustrations with the structure of SOS within the curriculum. These categories are elaborated, and a discussion and implications that flow from them are presented.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207