Towards an examination of theory and method in diversity education in clinical and counselling psychology programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholarship in the area of diversity studies has flourished in counselling and clinical psychology over the past four decades. However, a literature review suggests that current diversity training approaches are insufficient for then marginalization of certain oppressed groups and their exclusive focus on the American context. To investigate these issues, the objectives of the present study were: (a) to identify approaches to diversity education used by diversity educators in counselling and clinical psychology programmes; (b) to identify barriers and problems associated with different approaches to diversity education; and (c) to propose a new model for diversity competence that could guide the future development of diversity studies in counselling and clinical psychology. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with diversity educators from counselling and clinical psychology programmes across Canada. The themes that emerged in interviews were compiled to form a more comprehensive picture of diversity education in counselling and clinical psychology.
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 | 0.197 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".