MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414621557 · doi:10.3390/youth5040102

Multicultural Responsiveness with Newcomer Youth: A Counsellors’ Perspective

2025· article· en· W4414621557 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Zak, Linnea F. Kalchos, Anusha Kassan

Bibliographic record

VenueYouth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismPerceptionPerspective (graphical)Interpretative phenomenological analysisQualitative researchCultural competenceCompetence (human resources)Intercultural competence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This descriptive phenomenological study investigated counsellors’ perceptions of their multicultural responsiveness and related counselling competencies. Accordingly, we employed a phenomenological research design to investigate these perceptions. Our study focused on 15 participants located in Canada between 25 and 60 years old, all with over three years of experience working in immigration. They completed a 90 min, in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interview about their perceptions of their cultural competence while working with newcomer youth. Results were developed to include four significant categories highlighting the critical role of counsellor awareness, knowledge, and skills, as well as the multicultural counselling relationship. These findings highlight the way multicultural counselling competencies need to be targeted when working with young newcomers in their host country. Implications for practice, training, research, and policy are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYouthSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207