Evaluating the Confronting Hegemonic Ideas Speaker Series: Implications for the Education of Counsellors and Psychologists in Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Confronting Hegemonic Ideas Speaker Series was proposed to increase academic and professional engagement with ideological diversity for counsellors and psychologists in training. A survey was sent to all 329 attendees of the seven talks in the Speaker Series, and feedback/evaluation surveys were received from over 30% of attendees. Evaluation ratings were extremely positive, and narrative feedback was also generally favourable. Based on the number of individuals in attendance and their variability across current vocation, gender, nationality, race, and ethnicity, it appears that the Speaker Series was successful in widely increasing awareness of heterodox viewpoints and research typically ignored or ostracized in counsellor and psychologist training programs. With this promising evaluation data, it is recommended that other training programs implement similar speaker series for the education and training of counsellors and psychologists. Keywords: speaker series, confronting hegemonic ideas, counsellor education, psychologist education, counsellors-in-training, psychologists-in-training
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".