MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165270533 · doi:10.1080/07325223.2021.1919949

Applying intersectionality in clinical supervision: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3165270533 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Supervisor · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityOppressionClinical PracticeConceptual frameworkFocus (optics)PsychologySociologyEngineering ethicsMedicineNursingGender studiesPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intersectionality theory examines multiple and intersecting experiences of oppression and privileges and can be utilized in clinical practice. Many clinicians may be unsure how to apply intersectionality effectively. Clinical supervision is an ideal setting to learn about intersectionality and develop relevant skills. This paper uses scoping review methodology to synthesize existing clinical supervision and intersectionality literature, with twenty-one conceptual and empirical articles identified in the last decade in counseling, social work, psychology, and marriage and family therapy. The volume, content, nature, and intersectionality focus related to clinical supervision are described, along with implications for practice, research, and education.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.392
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.179 · 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