Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research suggests that mental health professionals (MHPs) are more likely to be victims of stalking than are members of the general public, yet less likely to report their victimization to police.The present study attempted to increase the evidence base on stalking of MHPs by surveying the experiences of Registered Clinical Counsellors in British Columbia, Canada.All members of the provincial professional association for Registered Clinical Counsellors were contacted, and N = 346 completed an on-line survey (response rate = 17%).The survey included questions to determine the prevalence and nature of stalking victimization, focusing on stalking that occurred in the context of the respondents' work as MHPs; the impact of the stalking and the strategies respondents used to cope with it; and respondents' knowledge of and attitudes toward stalking.Results indicated that many respondents had experienced individual stalking-related behaviours.The lifetime prevalence of stalking victimization perpetrated by clients was 7% (SE = 1%), a rate consistent with that found in other types of MHPs and in other countries.The characteristics of stalking perpetrators were similar to those reported in previous research.Victims often had problems coping with victimization due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon of stalking, engaging in behaviour that is generally considered ineffective or even counter-productive when responding to stalking, and inadequate access to external resources.Overall, about half of respondents were unaware that MHPs were at increased risk for stalking victimization and many endorsed the view that stalking victimization is caused by poor clinical skills.The implications of these findings for the prevention of and responses to the stalking victimization of MHPs by clients 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".