Respecting the Dual Sided Identity of Clinical Pastoral Education and Professional Chaplaincy: The Phenomenological Research Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question discussed in this volume opens a debate on what kind of scientific research model should be used by professional chaplaincy and Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). The problem begins with the assumption that "becoming more scientific" means using the natural sciences approach employed by psychology; an approach unsuitable to account for factors relative to faith, spiritual and religious issues. I argue that CPE and professional chaplaincy need to be more scientific but not necessarily under the natural sciences model. Considering the predominance of that model in psychology, I believe pastors and chaplains should resist pressures to rely on the natural science model and adopt instead models that respect their dual sided identity. I conclude by suggesting that the phenomenological research model best allows investigation of patients' spiritual as well as psychological issues.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it