MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794779366

Peer Edmonton Empathy Recruitment Scale (PEERS): A Tool for Student Peer Support Worker Selection and Empathy Measurement

2018· article· en· W2794779366 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonathan Dubue, Jeremy Cheng, Wesley Vuong, Chris Westbury

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyMental healthPsychologyScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)PopulationApplied psychologyPeer supportMedical educationClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian universities increasingly emphasize student peer support services as a mental health treatment option. These services, composed of peer support workers (PSWs), reduce professional counselling admissions and treatment costs. The process of selecting PSWs, however, has historically been unstandardized, leading to difficulties with the assessment of ideal workers for these helping roles. To help Canadian postsecondary mental health initiatives recruit PSWs, we developed a brief nonclinical postsecondary student empathy scale that reliably identifies suitable PSWs in a student population. In this study, we discuss the strong psychometric validity and reliability of the Peer Edmonton Empathy Recruitment Scale and its utility for Canadian universities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.231
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207