Psychology in Canada: Opportunities and challenges.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the idea of putting together a special issue of Canadian Psychology on the Psychology in Canada:-Opportunities and Challenges was first discussed with members of the Canadian Psychological Association's (CPA's) Publication Committee, with fellow editors at CPA and the American Psychological Association (APA), and with colleagues, the feedback that we received was lukewarm, at best; the concern from some was that we would not receive many submissions or that the topic was so broad that it would be nearly impossible to compile an issue with any sense of coherence or unifying theme. We postponed the call for papers a number of times over a period of months, until August 2015 to be more precise, when we decided to take the plunge. The weeks that followed proved that the initial hesitation was unjustified; no other special issue of Canadian Psychology has received as many submissions as this issue on the future of psychology. Clearly, we as a profession had quite a few things on our mind, and we wanted to share them.New Technology and New FrontiersMost of the articles included in this special issue cover topics that are tied directly to progress and innovation in technology and to social and political changes in Canadian society and abroad. Technology is one area that shows rapid growth, and that continues to have an effect on how psychologists are educated and practice. New technologies may, for example, provide novel means of educating or of offering services to individuals who would not or could not otherwise receive these services (e.g., Hadjistavropoulos, Alberts, Nugent, & Marchildon, 2014; Johnson, 2014; LawlorSavage & Prentice, 2014; McColl, Rideout, Parmar, & Abba-Aji, 2014; Campbell et al., 2016; Osborn, Kronholz, Finklea, & Cantonis, 2014; Prentice & Dobson, 2014). But there are also more subtle consequences to the use of technology, as the 2014 Facebook incident at Dalhousie serves to remind us (see Task Force on Misogyny, Sexism and Homophobia in the Faculty of Dentistry, 2015). The popularity of social media platforms continues to increase, and their use is not without personal, professional, and ethical complexities, particularly for professionals in training. Trainees, but also those who supervise them, may underestimate the consequences of their online behaviours on their practice and therapeutic relationships with patients or clients as well on the public image of their university and, more broadly, of their profession. A study by Lehavot, Barnett, and Powers (2010) found that approximately one in three psychology graduate trainees has posted online photos or information that they would not want their clients to see. In this era of guidelines for clinical practice (see, e.g., Beauchamp, Drapeau, & Dionne, 2015; Stamoulos, Reyes, Trepanier, & Drapeau, 2014), are guidelines needed to establish certain parameters to our online behaviours as well? If so, are university-wide policies sufficient, in as much as they are available, or do we also need policies or guidelines that are specific to psychology?Maranza and her colleagues (2016) conducted a review of 21 Canadian universities with an accredited clinical psychology program to determine if the schools have a social media policy that applied to clinical psychology students, faculty, and staff. Their findings indicate that although most of the Canadian universities had some form of social media policy or guidelines, these were typically at the university level. In their article, the authors make the case that the specialized nature of professional psychology may require a psychology-specific policy to capture issues related to patient privacy and confidentiality, boundary concerns, and the protection of professional credibility. Trainees in psychology, as well as more seasoned psychologists, must recognise that the ways in which they conduct themselves both inside and outside of their professional institution may also reflect on their professional image. …
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".