Re-imagining inclusive, existential approaches to spirituality in therapeutic recreation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this conceptual paper we make a case for frameworks of spirituality and spiritual practice in Therapeutic Recreation (TR) to be broadened in order to be supportive and inclusive of all forms of beliefs and practice. While acknowledging contributions that Christian-Judeo models have made to spiritual practice in TR settings, our paper illuminates a need for grounding approaches to discussing, exploring, and fostering spirituality in the context of TR, particularly to address diversity through a framework that is complementary of individuals with an array of spiritual beliefs and practices. This critique is primarily an effort to re-shape TR landscapes, beyond Christian-Judeo frameworks that dominate spirituality literature in TR, to address spiritual diversity and accessibility for individuals who embrace non-dominant spiritual practices. In this paper, Purdy and Dupey’s (2005) Holistic Flow Model and Howe-Murphy and Murphy’s (1997) Consciousness Paradigm are synthesized to reflect an umbrella under which diverse spiritual approaches can flourish in TR contexts where traditional, dominant TR practices keep spirituality at the periphery. We advocate for an existential framework to ground this understanding of spirituality in settings where TR is practiced to inform a holistic leisure practice between individuals and with TR partners in care. To support these aims for an existentially grounded, spirituality-driven approach in TR, we describe how care partners can support spiritual explorations with others for all involved in the process through authenticity and equanimity in care practice. We believe TR partners in care are integral to reconstructions of TR practices and expanding possibilities for spirituality in contexts of TR.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".