A Wise Practices concept in counselling from within an Indigenous Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association (2020) notes that revisions to consider Indigenous Peoples, communities, and contexts were among the most significant adjustments, drawing attention to concepts addressed through the process of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. A Wise Practices Lens was offered as part of “a first step in the journey of a shared understanding that requires the involvement of a grassroots, Indigenous-driven community exploration of Indigenous-based ethics" (p. 30). Moving forward in the counselling profession, it is vital to acknowledge and assert the diverse Nation-specific, land-and-place-based healing and helping practices expressed uniquely by, and subjectively within, the cultural worldviews of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. From this position of advocacy and Indigenous self-determination, it is important to develop a contribution that explores the concept of Wise Practices through a cultural lens, specifically in the context of counselling and helping work. Darlene Denis-Friske (Algonquin Anishinaabe) presents the results of a systematic review of the concept of Wise Practices as described by Indigenous Scholars and Knowledge Holders. This involves a review of the literature on the history and development of the concept in general, with a secondary aim to present a view of the cultural concept within the context of counselling. Darlene seeks to honour the lens of Etuaptmumk // Two-Eyed Seeing as described by Elder Albert Marshall, Moose Clan of the Mi'kmaw Nation, who shares teachings that encourage understanding across multiple paradigms and perspectives of knowledge-building while remaining centred within Indigenous worldviews.
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".