MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035485981 · doi:10.1089/eco.2009.0045

Eco-Spiritual Helping and Postmodern Therapy: A Deeper Ecological Framework

2010· article· en· W2035485981 on OpenAlexaff
Fred H. Besthorn, Dan Wulff, Sally St. George

Bibliographic record

VenueEcopsychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)PostmodernismEnvironmental ethicsAppealConsciousnessEcological crisisIntellectSociologyPsychologyEpistemologyHistoryPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along with some substantial benefits of important scientific and technological advancements in the modern era, we have experienced a significant alienation of humans from the rest of the natural world, manifested by many forms of violence against nature and other living beings. Modernistic therapy approaches and models tend to fragment the person as a whole, focusing on the individual human intellect and/or emotion as being superior or more fundamental than the other natural living processes of our collective world. In this article we propose an alternative model called Eco-Spiritual Helping (ESH) for expanding human consciousness of, and creating reconnection with, the natural world. Historical roots of the model are presented along with the central themes. A composite case example illustrates how ESH can partner with postmodern therapeutic approaches in order to create a deeper ecological approach to helping. We conclude with an appeal for mental health professionals to aid in the reconnection of humans with the natural world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.045
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcopsychologySame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207