Counseling Canadian Indigenous Peoples: The Therapeutic Alliance and Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether client therapeutic alliance ratings and client symptom severity were predictors of counseling outcomes among Canadian Indigenous clients. Participants included 179 Canadian Indigenous clients who completed an outcome measure at the 1st and last sessions and an alliance measure at both the 2nd and 3rd sessions. Results indicated that higher client alliance ratings at Sessions 2 and 3 and baseline client symptom severity were significant predictors of outcome. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar si las valoraciones del cliente de la alianza terapéutica y la severidad de los síntomas del cliente fueron indicadores de los resultados de la consejería entre clientes indígenas canadienses. Los participantes incluyeron 179 clientes indígenas canadienses que completaron una medida de resultados en la primera y última sesión, además de una medida de la alianza en la segunda y tercera sesión. Los resultados indicaron que unas valoraciones del cliente más altas de la alianza en las sesiones 2 y 3 y la severidad preliminar de los síntomas del cliente fueron indicadores significativos del resultado.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".