Bibliographic record
Abstract
These guidelines were developed to encourage non-discriminatory practice among psychologists. They were based on the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CPA, 1991) and have been updated to cross reference to the third edition of the Code (CPA, 2000).1 The guidelines are aspirational in intent. The goal is to promote non-discriminatory care in therapeutic work with clients, as well as to provide guidelines for evaluating the extent to which one’s work falls within the parameters of non-discriminatory practice. As our society and culture become more diverse, and as we become more aware of specific diversities, it is important that psychologists gain an awareness of the need for non-discriminatory practice. As the need arises, guidelines can be developed for use of specific diversities. Ethical Principles Applied to Non-Discriminatory Practice Principle I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons The principle of Respect for the Dignity of Persons (CPA, 2000) requires psychologists in practice, teaching and research to actively demonstrate a belief that each person should be treated primarily as a person or an end in him/herself, not as an object or a means to an end. Psychologists appreciate that the innate worth of human beings is not enhanced or reduced by
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".