How do High School Counsellors Perceive Their Role? It can Start in the Parking Lot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This doctoral research was designed to acquire authentic data about the roles of practicing high school counsellors. Through a qualitative collective case study design, twelve practicing high school counsellors were interviewed about their perceptions of their role. Using open and axial coding, data were thematically reported and analyzed and were embedded in three conceptual frameworks: an interpretivist approach, elements of Durkheim’s structural functionalism, and principles of grounded theory. The results found that school counsellors perceived tension in ten of eleven thematic topics: advocacy practices, role ambiguity, the overwhelming demands placed upon them, their work as front-line mental health workers, parental communication, the unpredictability of their work day, collaborative practices, their support of school staff, involvement in crisis, and self-care. Counsellors did not perceive tension in supporting students for post-secondary or other academic assistance. Implications for future research were identified which may further reveal the work of high school counsellors, work that may be frequently clandestine to school stakeholders because of the confidential nature of the school counsellor’s role.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".