MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038696156 · doi:10.3138/cjhs.2020-0015

Core competencies for BESTCO certified sex therapists

2020· article· en· W3038696156 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Vicky Winterton, Darlene Dzendoletas, Stephen Holzapfel, Peggy J. Kleinplatz, Neil S. Lackey, Susan Neeb, Lisa Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationPsychotherapistCertificationSexual abusePsychologyPsychological interventionCompetence (human resources)MedicineClinical psychologyMedical educationPsychiatryPoison controlSocial psychologySuicide prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2015, the leadership of the Board of Examiners in Sex Therapy and Counselling of Ontario (BESTCO) struck a committee to establish the first set of core competencies for the field of sex therapy. The inter-disciplinary committee used a modified Delphi approach. The resulting document, introduced here, was ratified by the BESTCO membership in 2019. BESTCO members must be able to demonstrate competence in assessment and therapy in core clinical areas as a condition of certification. Eleven clinical topics were identified for assessment and therapy with general and key features for each topic. These clinical topics include not only the DSM disorders (e.g., arousal difficulties, orgasm difficulties) but also broader areas including Lack of Knowledge about Sexuality, Desire Discrepancies, and Sexual Sequelae of Sexual Assault, Abuse or Other Trauma. The General Key Features for assessment are organized into 7 domains: History of the Problem, Sexual History, Medical/Psychiatric, Psychological, Cultural, Relational and Quality of Sex. The General Key Features for Therapy are organized in terms of principles of Clinical Orientation, Clinical Formulation, Referral/Collaboration, Psychoeducation, Interventions and Therapy. The emphasis in this document is on allowing therapists of differing clinical perspectives to articulate principles of assessment and case conceptualization from within their own frames of reference. We affirm that this must be a fluid document, updated to reflect developments in language, assessment, conceptualization, and treatment as those factors shift.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Human SexualitySame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207