A Diachronic History of the Scopes of Practice of Counselling Psychology in Three Sub-Saharan African Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2016 a landmark article was published in the Counselling Psychology Quarterly aimed at providing a global portrait of the discipline of counselling psychology. Unfortunately, only experiences and histories of counselling psychology in eight countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) were represented. Similarly, in 2019 another important article was published in the Counseling Psychologist, aimed at highlighting the factors that influence counselling practice in four countries (Iceland, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey). Unfortunately, again, the history of Counselling Psychology in the whole of Africa apart from South Africa remained omitted in these publications. The present article is an attempt to close this gap. Its principal objective is to let our foreign partners who plan to spend their sabbatical or other such experiences in any of the three African countries highlighted in this study be aware of what goes on in the field of counselling psychology in these countries and how they will be able to fit in when teaching or practicing counselling psychology in any one of them.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".