A Content Analysis of Gendered Research in the Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increased awareness of but limited quantification of the lack of published scholarship about boys and men in counselling. We conducted a content analysis on articles published in the Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy from 2000 to 2013 to examine gender differences in research participants and to explore the topics published. After reviewing 293 articles, we found that female-topic-specific articles outnumbered male-topic-specific articles by 3:1 and research studies based on exclusively female client/ student samples outnumbered those based on exclusively male samples by about 4:1. When examining only gender-specific articles that were intentionally seeking to look at a particular gender—not including the four articles in Vol. 46, No. 4 (2012), the special issue on boys/men—the ratio of female-specific articles to male-specific articles is about 5:1; for research studies that ratio is about 15:1. This leaves clinicians with a small Canadian research base from which to provide gender-sensitive and evidence-based interventions with boys/men.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".