Feminist Thought and Guidelines for Ethical Psychological Practice With Self-Identifying Women and Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several iterations of guidelines for ethical psychological practice with those who self-identify as women and girls have been developed in the field of Canadian psychology and are designed to offer practitioners direction concerning their ethical responsibilities and competencies. But to be responsive to the varied and changing experiences of women and girls within the Canadian context, these guidelines require regular revision. This article discusses avenues for evolving inclusive counselling and psychotherapy practice with women and girls in Canada. While the primary focus is on implications for counselling and psychotherapy practice, the need for ethical texts and guidelines to reflect gender diversity is underscored. Drawing from literature on feminist thought and its applications, this article offers recommendations for ethical and socially just counselling and psychotherapy practice. Additionally, this article is intended to reignite conversation about how future iterations of ethical guidelines may evolve to be more responsive to the current status of those who self-identify as women and girls.
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 | 0.064 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.107 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".