16 Canadian Journal of Counselling / Revue canadienne de counseling/2007, Vol. 41:1 Confi dentiality and Informed Consent: School Counsellors ’ Perceptions of Ethical Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the fi ndings of in-depth interviews with school counsellors in Nova Scotia on issues related to confi dentiality and informed consent. Of the 224 school counsellors in the province, 43 counsellors, representing all school boards, agreed to a 45-minute semi-structured telephone interview focusing on their current practices and their views on optimal practices related to confi dentiality and informed consent. Analysis of interviews identifi ed fi ve categories of issues and concerns related to confi dentiality and informed consent: informing students on issues of confi dentiality, age of consent, issues of professional confi dentiality, sharing client information with others, and confi dentiality with teachers and principals. rÉsumÉ Cet article présente les conclusions d’entrevues en profondeur avec des conseillers scolaires en Nouvelle-Écosse sur des questions de la confi dentialité et le consentement éclairé. Des 224 conseillers dans les écoles provinciales, 43 conseillers représentant toutes les commis-sions scolaires ont consenti à une entrevue téléphonique semi structuré d’une durée de
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".