268 Canadian Journal of Counselling/Revue canadienne de counseling/1998, Vol. 32:4 Special Issues i n Ethical and Legal Issues i n Counse l l ing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lat in word communis, meaning " i n common, " underlies the words "communicate " and "community. " The shared root is reflected not only in their similar spelling but also i n their deeper meaning, as communica-tion is necessary i n bui ld ing a sense of community. This special issue on ethical and legal issues i n counsell ing reflects the interplay between communicat ion and community i n that, as we discuss topics of concern to us all, we can strengthen our shared sense of professional identify and connection. O u r professional identity, inc luding our consensus on what constitutes appropriate counsellor behaviour, provides the public and our clients with an identifiable professional "face. " But, whose face do they see? Any community, inc luding a professional community, consists of many mem-bers with both shared and divergent points of view. Consequently, our professional identity consists of a delicate and constantly evolving bal-ance between those beliefs or worldviews that are shared by all members
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.008 |
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".