Clinical Practice and Clinical Supervision: Building a Firm Foundation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the authors report on the “Foregrounding Clinical Practice and Clinical Supervision” working group of the Canadian Counselling Psychology Conference held on October 26 to 28, 2018, at the University of Calgary. Of the 12 working group participants, nine self-identified as students and three identified as licensed practitioners (two of the practitioners also held academic positions). This group of mostly early-career professionals identified an overarching theme of building a firm foundation for their future practice. Working group members identified three important contributors: the development of a strong, multi-faceted professional identity, including issues of licensure and certification, the interplay between counselling and clinical psychology, and the place of career psychology; the importance of clinical supervision, including the perceived variable quality of supervision and the apparent shortage of practicum placements; and professional role models. The authors provide their perspectives on the issue the working group raised and offer recommendations for counsellor educators and practice leaders.
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 | 0.048 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| 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".