MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993455782 · doi:10.2182/cjot.06.006

Critical Elements of Spirituality as Identified by Adolescent Mental Health Clients

2006· article· en· W1993455782 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Patrick S. MacGillivray, Thelma Sumsion, Joy Wicks-Nicholls

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityPsychologyMental healthPopulationClinical psychologyExploratory researchComprehensionPsychotherapistMedicineAlternative medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Client spirituality has been recognized as a central component of Canadian occupational therapy, but little research has been conducted in this area. PURPOSE: This exploratory study attempted to gain insight into the relevant elements of spirituality and its importance to inpatient adolescent mental health clients. METHOD: An adolescent spirituality questionnaire was developed from definitions of spirituality in the literature, modified by a focus group consisting of members of the target population, and administered to 11 respondents. RESULTS: Elements related to the individual and lifelong pursuits of the individual were most closely associated with spirituality while those items traditionally connected with spirituality and with external pursuits, activities, and relationships are considered less relevant by this population. Results suggest that spirituality is important to a majority of inpatient adolescent mental health clients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It is suggested that more studies drawing information on spirituality directly from specific client populations are essential for the occupational therapy community to improve its comprehension of, and to better its ability to address in practice, the critical area of client spirituality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207