Status and Problems of Counseling Psychology in the Modern World and Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the current state, problems and opportunities for the development of counseling psychology in Ukraine based on a comparative analysis of the functioning of this field in other countries of the world. An analysis of the current state of counseling psychology in countries with a developed tradition in this field belonging to different cultural and civilizational contexts was carried out. On the basis of the Cochrane methodology with the application of SWOT analysis, the results of the study of strengths and weaknesses, potential threats and prospects for the development of counseling psychology in eight countries of the world: Austria, India, Israel, Canada, France, the Republic of South Africa, Japan and Ukraine are summarized. It was established that counseling psychology in Ukraine not only does not lag behind other countries in terms of the number of practices and qualifications of specialists, but also has a number of advantages, such as the presence of a network of psychological consultations and higher educational institutions that train psychologists, the functioning of professional associations and periodicals, review Law on Psychological Assistance, etc. The growth in demand for the services of counseling psychologists in Ukraine in connection with military actions, as well as the expansion of the possibilities of conducting consultations in the online format, is analyzed. However, the problem of financing higher education was revealed, which leads to a decrease in the quality of professional training of psychologists; the problem of contradiction between consultative approaches and mental, religious and behavioral traditions of society is discussed; political and socio-economic factors are analyzed, such as impoverishment of the population, a decrease in its cultural level, which complicates the work of psychologists and limits access to psychological help.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".