Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the 2015–2016 president of the Association for Spiritual, Ethical, and Religious Values in Counseling (ASERVIC), I would like to welcome you to our journal and our organization. This spring edition of CVJ causes me to reflect on all of the new ASERVIC initiatives and events that we have worked hard to bring to you over the past few months, such as our partnerships with other American Counseling Association interest-based divisions to deliver webinars. More important, my role as president has put me in touch with such great energy from students, counselors, counselor educators, and other helpers who are deeply committed to our organization and have dedicated some of their free time to help us improve our processes and bring new benefits to our members. Experiencing this new energy has offered me a renewal in my journey that has been unexpected and very welcome. As you read this, many of us have recently traveled home from the 2016 American Counseling Association conference held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. We made a concerted effort this year to hold ASERVIC-sponsored events that featured some of the presentations from our 2015 ASERVIC conference in New York last summer. We officially unveiled our new ASERVIC logo and celebrated all of the individuals who submitted entries for consideration. There were also changes in the content of ASERVIC meetings—such as offering an ASERVIC Emerging Leaders session and convening an ASERVIC Advisory Board. Perhaps the biggest highlight was the ASERVIC luncheon, at which we had the opportunity to join together with friends old and new to enjoy the community that we have created. In closing, I want to say thank you to all of you who have shared your ideas and your time in contributing to the mission of ASERVIC. In the past few months, I believe that we have been mindful of traditions while reaching forward into the future. I hope that this energy continues to move us in a positive direction. Be well, Elizabeth
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.413 | 0.351 |
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".