ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF CONDUCTING THE PSYCHO-CORRECTIONAL PROCESS AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE ETHICAL CODES OF UKRAINE AND CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ukraine, the practice of providing psychological and coaching services in social networks has become widespread and these services occurred and continue to occur with violations of the rules of ethics of psychological counseling. In fact, in the current conditions when many different counseling services are available, the line between professional psychological help and “personal growth schools” is blurring. Those schools do not so much help as harm a person, without solving his/her problem at a deep level. Therefore, the goal of our research is to actualize the need to modernize the practice of applying ethical norms by Ukrainian psychologists and improve it by borrowing international experience from the world psychological community and comparing ethical approaches in Canada and Ukraine. The research presents the author’s practical experience of working with clients (taking into account all confidentiality rules). During the research, a mini-survey was conducted on social networks, which shows a certain trend that the ethical principles of psychologists’ work aren’t a high priority for their clients. It becomes obvious, that such low demand from society for ethical norms creates a corresponding supply of services that neglect generally accepted rules of professional activity. By analyzing some aspects of the Canadian and Ukrainian Ethical Codes, the author considers it necessary to draw attention to the need for quick and decisive actions to change the general paradigm in the services of Ukrainian psychologists with an emphasis on strengthening the ethical component and increasing the responsibility for violations of rules recognized by state institutions and public associations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".