Comparative Analysis of Ethical Provisions Governing the Activities of a Counseling Psychologist in Social Networks in Native and Foreign Codes of Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents a comparative analysis of the ethical provisions governing the activities of a consultant psychologist on social networks. The analysis was carried out on the basis of the content of the principle of publicity of eight ethical codes of Russian professional associations of psychologists, psychologists-consultants and psychotherapists. It was concluded that these ethical provisions are duplicated in most cases, and also regulate the public behavior of a specialist in general, suggesting activities on social networks, but not specifying it. A review of methodological recommendations on the use of social networks by foreign psychological communities is provided, where this type of activity is distinguished as a separate principle or position, and additional methodological recommendations have been developed in some countries. The review is based on the example of professional associations of the USA, Great Britain and Canada. It is indicated on the need to strengthen the educational component in the field of consulting ethics, the formation of effectively working professional associations, their response and supervision of complex cases, informing clients about the informed choice of a specialist.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".