The Practice of Collaborative Counseling and Psychotherapy: Developing Skills in Culturally Mindful Helping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SECTION ONE: PREPARING FOR PRACTICE CHAPTER ONE: CULTURE, COUNSELING, AND CARE CHAPTER TWO: THERAPEUTIC CONVERSATION SECTION TWO: CONSTRUCTING A FOUNDATION FOR COLLABORATION CHAPTER THREE: RECEIVING AND LISTENING CHAPTER FOUR: BUILDING RELATIONSHIP SECTION THREE: MAPPING CLIENTS' EXPERIENCE CHAPTER FIVE: RECEIVING AND READING MEANING CHAPTER SIX: RESPONDING AND CONFIRMING MEANING SECTION FOUR: ASSESSING CHALLENGES, PREFERENCES, AND OPPORTUNITIES CHAPTER SEVEN: Defining and Describing Problems and Preferences CHAPTER EIGHT: ASSESSMENT I: EVALUATING CHALLENGES AND COMPETENCIES CHAPTER NINE: ASSESSMENT II: ATTENDING TO THE WIDER CONTEXT SECTION FIVE: PROMOTING CHANGE CHAPTER TEN: COLLABORATIVE INFLUENCE: ACHIEVABLE GOALS TOWARDS PREFERRED OUTCOMES CHAPTER ELEVEN: WORKING WITH ACTIONS CHAPTER TWELVE: WORKING WITH THOUGHTS AND BELIEFS CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Working with Emotions and Values CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Working with Stories CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Endings and Beginnings
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".