Mental Health Professionals' Views on the Regulation of Psychotherapy in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, statutory regulation for the mental health professions is a provincial or territorial matter. In 2007, the Ontario government introduced the Psychotherapy Act (PA), which details the scope of practice as well as the authorized act of psychotherapy. The PA established the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario (CRPO) to regulate its members in the service of protecting the public. Given the long history of contestation and ambiguity surrounding the definition of psychotherapy, the PA represents an important historic moment for practitioners in Ontario. However, little research has been conducted on psychotherapy practitioners’ experiences and perspectives on professional regulation. This study qualitatively explored perspectives on, and experiences with, the PA among regulated mental health practitioners who have access to the act of psychotherapy in Ontario, including psychotherapists, nurses, physicians, occupational therapists, psychologists, and social workers. The study provides insights into the ways that these professional groups are impacted by the regulation of psychotherapy and has implications for the future implementation of statutory regulation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".