The future of Canadian counselling psychology: Doctoral students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the overall characteristics and beliefs of Canadian counselling psychology doctoral students. An online survey was administered to 43 doctoral students across all Canadian counselling psychology programmes, representing an approximate 26% response rate. Results indicated that the average age of doctoral students in the sample was about 32 years and that the majority were women (about 77% in the sample). Additionally, findings can be taken to suggest that participants were satisfied with their choice of counselling psychology as a career. The doctoral students sampled primarily practised from an integrationist theoretical standpoint and spent very little of their practice time providing formal psychological assessment services or career counselling. Participants generally intervened through individual counselling or psychotherapy and were focused on disorder treatment rather than preventative or developmental services. Curriculum changes that should be considered from the results of this study pertain to the topics of assessment, career counselling, advocacy/media skills, professional identity development and prevention/developmental interventions. The results of this study can also be taken to predict characteristics of the next generation of Canadian counselling psychologists and the future practice of counselling psychology in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".