Embracing the Future: Updating and Revising the Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC) certifies qualified candidates as certified rehabilitation counselors in the United States (CRCs) and as Canadian certified rehabilitation counselors (CCRCs) in Canada. Those professionals who are certified as CRCs/CCRCs are expected to adhere to the CRCC Code of Professional Ethics. The CRCC Code of Ethics is updated from time to time. With the completion of the recent revision process, a revised Code of Professional Ethics for CRCs/CCRCs is now being distributed and implemented by the CRCC. Given the changes and updates to the Code of Professional Ethics, this article and subsequent articles in this special issue help to outline the process and rationale that framed the recent revision process. Although some specific changes are highlighted through this special issue, practitioners are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the entire code.
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 | 0.127 | 0.374 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".