Cognitive behavioural therapy in corrections: an advanced clinical practicum with Correctional Service Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This advanced practicum research report describes my practicum experiences within a federal correctional facility, the incorporation of cognitive behavioural therapy in corrections, group work within the correctional environment, clinical discharge planning, social work supervision, and the role of clinical social workers as members of an interdisciplinary team. The literature review will provide a summary of cognitive behavioural therapy in a criminal justice setting in Canada, incarcerated individuals with mental health problems, the role of social workers in criminal justice settings, discharge planning in criminal justice settings, social work practice with groups in criminal justice settings, social work clinical supervision, and clinical discharge planning. Following this, a discussion of the practicum process will occur. Next, a discussion of my reflections and critical analysis related to my practicum experience will provide a discussion of major themes demonstrating the growth of my theoretical knowledge and clinical skill sets throughout the practicum process. Throughout the report, I will highlight the major themes revealed within my reflective practice, divided into five various categories: the cognitive behavioural therapy model in clinical corrections practice, social work group practice in corrections, social work clinical supervision in the correctional system, awareness of the responsibilities of clinical social workers as members of an interdisciplinary team in the correctional system and discharge planning in the correctional system. The report will then conclude with a summary of my experience as a clinical social worker in the federal correctional system and a discussion relating to implications for social work practice.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".