MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377240465 · doi:10.1177/08295735231172832

It’s Not Our Way: Navigating the Principle of Dual Relationships as a First Nation Practitioner

2023· article· en· W4377240465 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Dawn McDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationAutoethnographyIndigenousPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Mental healthSet (abstract data type)Dual (grammatical number)Field (mathematics)SociologySocial psychologyPedagogySocial scienceLawPsychotherapistPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First Nations and Eurocentric approaches in the field of psychology and mental health are rooted in different worldviews which creates incongruencies as to what may be deemed as effective standards of practice. This autoethnography describes the experience of a school psychology intern navigating through practice particularly as it pertains to the principle of dual relationships. With a first-person perspective the journey of exploration into this matter brings together the research found in academia and the guidelines formally set as well as the beliefs and values of local community members which were brought forth through a series of interviews and conversations. There are three main themes which arose that are highlighted and they are the embodiment of a spiritual orientation, substantiation of trust and integrity, and obligation to community. These themes explicate the differences in and implications for practice when working with First Nations people, particularly in remote spiritually connected communities. The practice of psychology in and with First Nation people needs to be rooted in their beliefs, values, and customs to be effective, to reflect the experience of Indigenous ways of helping, and to decolonize approaches in the field of psychology.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.330
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207