Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study aims to explore the experiences of clients who are undergoing counselling sessions with counsellor trainees who are completing an internship. The counsellor trainees are in their final semester of counselling training, and they are required to perform the internship for a duration of 24 weeks and fulfil a required number of hours of counselling sessions with clients. The clients who engaged in the counselling sessions with counsellor trainees during the internship were selected as research participants. Data were gathered through interviews, and these interviews were carried out after the counsellor trainees completed their internship. A total of 17 clients who had been through counselling sessions with the counsellor trainees were involved in the interviews. The clients, or the research participants, were located at different counselling centres. The findings indicate that clients’ experiences in counselling sessions included three themes: the clients’ views of counsellor trainees, the clients’ views of themselves during counselling sessions and the clients’ views about the counselling process. In addition, the skills and personal characteristics of effective counsellor trainees were a major contributor to the growth experienced by the clients as a result of the counselling sessions. The implication of the findings, personal characteristics and counselling skills of counsellor trainees should be developed through training programme.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".