The Future of Counselling Psychology Education and Training in Canada: A Post-Conference Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article summarizes and elaborates upon the themes discussed by members of the “Future of Counselling Psychology Education and Training in Canada” working group at the 2018 Canadian Counselling Psychology Conference (2018 CCPC) by 19 participants in attendance. Complexities in program requirements, external and internal program regulations, research competency and advancement, and cultural/social justice responsiveness and internationalization are explicated and analyzed. The current state of counselling psychology education and training is highly intricate and nuanced, while many strengths and opportunities for growth exist despite some long-standing tensions. It is hoped that this article not only will help outline and contextualize the current status and challenges facing the future of counselling psychology education and training in Canada but also will recruit others in helping to improve Canadian counselling psychology education and training. Advocating for what is needed to achieve this is consistent with the theme of the 2018 CCPC. Continued dialogue, program evaluation, theorizing, and research are needed on the nature and dynamics of Canadian counselling psychology education and training.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".