Korean Supervisors’ Experiences in Clinical Supervision
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand for mental health services in Korea is increasing, and a corresponding rise in the number of trainees in counseling psychology results in a need for effective supervision. Using a grounded theory approach, this study explored Korean supervisors’ experiences in supervision to better understand the current status of supervision practice in Korea. A model emerging from the data suggests that Korean clinical supervisors in mental health view teaching and explorations of supervisees’ personal issues as the main activities of supervision. Both the method of supervision and the structure of supervision affected the way that supervisors’ theoretical orientations and supervisees’ developmental levels influenced the focus of supervisors’ teaching and explorations of supervisees’ personal issues. To compensate for lack of formal training in supervision, participants in this study engaged in self-development activities. The results of this study are discussed in the context of Korean cultural characteristics and the current status of counseling psychology in Korea. Implications for future supervision training in Korea and in the United States are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it