MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341148879

Regulations Regarding the Practice of Psychotherapy in Quebec: One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards?

2016· article· en· W2341148879 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martin Drapeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationInternshipPossession (linguistics)PsychologyPsychotherapistLegal responsibilityMedical educationLawMedicinePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quebec innovated by recently passing a new law, commonly known as “Bill 21,” that regulates several clinical activities considered at risk activities, including psychotherapy. Bill 21 is meant to support “competent access,” recognizing different groups of professionals, including counsellors, who may offer psychotherapy services, with conditions. For practitioners who are neither psychologists nor physicians, these conditions include the obligation to be a member of a professional regulatory body, possession of a master’s degree, and successful completion of a 600-hour clinical internship and 765 hours of theoretical training. The responsibility for assessment of eligibility for a psychotherapy permit of all psychotherapists who are not psychologists or physicians and the authority to issue psychotherapy permits lie with the Order (College) of Psychologists of Quebec (OPQ). However, the OPQ appears to interpret the law in a way that imposes additional requirements on psychotherapists.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207