Differences between Canadian Psychological Association Non-Member and Member Counseling Psychologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalizations about Canadian counseling psychologists have been based on research that samples members of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), leading to questions about the extent to which this portrayal of the profession is accurate. In this exploratory study, answers to a 61-item questionnaire representing 86 variables were compared between 78 Canadian counseling psychologists who were members of the CPA and 107 Canadian counseling psychologists who were not members of the CPA. Inferential analyses found that CPA-member and nonmember counseling psychologists differed significantly on 11 of the 86 variables assessed, indicating that the currently available portrayal of Canadian counseling psychologists used by licensure bodies, professional associations, academic programs, instructors, and researchers is not wholly accurate. Reliance on inaccurate information about the profession can hinder the future development of Canadian counseling psychology as its members strive to meet the needs of counseling psychology students, counseling psychology professionals, and the populations they serve.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.195 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".