MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163572910

Frequency of Scholarship on Counselling Males in the "Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy".

2012· article· en· W2163572910 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stuart M. Hoover, Robinder P. Bedi, Lauren K. Beall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipPsychologyEmbodied cognitionPsychotherapistPublicationCounseling psychologyClinical psychologyPolitical scienceEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the frequency with which studies on boys/men are represented in Canadian counselling scholarship, as embodied in the Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy (CJCP). To address this question, a quantitative content analysis was conducted of articles published in CJCP from 2000 (Volume 34, Number 1) to 2011 (Volume 45, Number 2). Results indicate that authors and researchers who publish in CJCP overwhelmingly study females rather than males, at a ratio of about 12 to 1. This raises questions regarding the absence of boys/men in Canadian counselling scholarship and provides a defensible rationale for the further study of males and counselling.

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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207