Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pargament and Lomax present religion as a “double-edged sword”, serving both as a resource and a challenge to psychiatry. This analogy may be useful in guiding further research and moving to a position of consensus a field that has been sometimes conflict-laden. Not only psychiatry has had difficulty with religion, but also religion — with its focus on mind, body and spirit — has had difficulty with psychiatry. Optimal restoration of mental health in a patient requires an ability by the psychiatrist to assemble evidence for treatment at levels ranging from cells to communities. This evidence is best informed by credible research. Religion is unique in that it provides a link to the past and to the future. In a society where governments focus on short-term expediency, many things are thrown away, families are volatile, institutions are unstable, and cultures are less “pure” because of migration, religion clearly provides a longitudinal perspective. To understand psychiatric disorders, a longitudinal perspective, including consideration of religion and spirituality, is also needed. In those individuals where religion and mental health problems intertwine, the better the understanding psychiatrists have of potentials and pitfalls around their patients’ religious or spiritual beliefs (or loss of them), the more able they will be to help restore balanced mental health. The author would like to thank Drs. R.C. Bowen and L. Balbuena for editorial assistance.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".