The Long and Winding Road to Professional Regulation in Ontario Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the long and winding road to regulation of behaviour analysts in Ontario, Canada over the past 25 years. It is written from the perspective of some of the many volunteers of the professional association (Ontario Association for Behaviour Analysis) who have contributed to this goal. The information has been corroborated by historical records and publicly available information. The need for public protection and oversight of behaviour analysis was noted in our field more than 50 years ago and continues to be relevant. With changes to international certification and concerns raised by some constituents about ABA practices, many jurisdictions continue to seek support for regulatory oversight. The goal of this paper is to inspire behaviour analysts in other jurisdictions to advocate for protection of the public and for recognition and oversight of the profession through policy reform. To this end, we have documented our collective efforts and experiences and suggested strategies that worked in our context that may generalize to other jurisdictions. Ultimately, efforts to promote ethical, effective, and socially valid ABA services will advance our field and enhance the benefits for those we support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".