Сравнение этических кодексов в практике психологического консультирования и психотерапии
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a comparative analysis of ethical codes governing psychological counseling and psychotherapy across various countries and regions, including the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and China. The scientific issue addressed is the identification of similarities and differences in ethical approaches shaped by the cultural and social contexts of each country. The novelty of the study lies in the comprehensive comparison and identification of global trends in the development of ethical standards at the international level. The aim of the article is to summarize the main provisions of professional ethics codes and discuss their current state of development. The research method involves a comparative analysis of official documents issued by national and regional psychological associations. The procedure involved examining and systematizing the core principles and specific provisions contained in the codes. The findings indicate that, despite the existence of shared ethical principles – such as respect, responsibility, and integrity – national codes vary considerably in their specific content and areas of emphasis. For example, the ethical code in the United States focuses on professional responsibility and avoiding harm, whereas the Singaporean code adopts a more advisory and guidance-oriented tone. In conclusion, the author highlights the importance of a nuanced understanding of ethical standards for psychologists and stresses the need to develop more universal frameworks that can facilitate international cooperation and enhance the quality of psychological practice. The article also underscores the importance of ongoing research to ensure that ethical codes remain responsive to evolving cultural and technological contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".