Psychopharmacology Training and Canadian Counsellors: Are We Getting What We Want and Need?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The psychopharmacology training experiences and attitudes of Canadian counsellors were the focus of our national Internet-based survey. This study was part of a larger investiga-tion on Canadian counsellors ’ attitudes, practices, and training experiences related to clients on antidepressants. Results of the current study indicate Canadian counsellors vary considerably in type and amount of psychopharmacology training received. A majority of participants reported that they did not receive this type of training in graduate school, though a strong majority advocated for such training to be mandatory in graduate school. Limitations of this research and directions for future research are provided. résumé Les expériences de formation en psychopharmacologie et les attitudes des conseillers canadiens étaient le point focal de notre sondage national par Internet. Cette étude faisait partie d’une plus grande enquête sur les attitudes des conseillers canadiens, leurs pratiques et leurs expériences de formation en matière de clients sous antidépresseurs. Les résultats de la présente étude indiquent que le type et la quantité de formations
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".