Practice 8 Respect for Dignity: Honouring Rights Through Responsible Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter Cristelle, Sandra, and Melissa enhance appreciation of human rights as a foundation for ethical, culturally responsive, and socially just counselling practice by centring respect for dignity. Dignity and human rights are inextricably intertwined. Dignity reflects the absolute and inherent worth of all human beings, and it is the universality of this inalienable worth that forms the impetus for human rights. Human rights often arise out of egregious historical events and then become embedded in human rights bills, declarations, and conventions. Human rights inform professional codes of ethics. Both human rights and dignity find expression in social spaces, professional spaces, and therapy spaces. Social dignity reflects the inherent value and worth that every individual possesses as a member of society, which is often compromised by coloniality and other forms of cultural oppression. In professional spaces, discrimination and othering can be more subtle. Cristelle offers insights into the harms that arise when a lack of dignity creeps into counselling and psychotherapy theory and practice. She contrasts this with actively and intentionally doing dignity by situating and upholding dignity within therapeutic spaces. Positioning the therapeutic relationship as a microcosm of broader society necessitates attention to social, professional, and therapeutic dignity. Cristelle offers a series of practical tips for enacting dignity in practice. A deep sense of respect for human dignity builds upon the practices of cultural humility and ethical space to amplify cultural safety in theory, research, and practice for all people and peoples. Cristelle, Sandra, and Melissa are joined in this chapter by the following co-authors: ● Zuraida Dada speaks to the ancient South African teaching of Ubuntu: I am because you are, which shapes her perspective on human rights and dignity. In two additional videos she expands on Ubuntu as a foundation for celebrating and honouring our shared humanity and offers a vision for hope and collaborative action. ● Kirby Huminuik shares a human rights framework for mental health practitioners. She participated in the development of the Five connections framework as a member of the American Psychological Association Task force on human rights. It offers a way for counsellors and psychotherapists to start thinking about human rights in their practice.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".