MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157509733 · doi:10.1300/j067v26n03_13

Spirituality in Social Work Pedagogy

2006· article· en· W2157509733 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching in Social Work · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityViewpointsSocial workPedagogyQualitative researchGrounded theoryInclusion (mineral)PsychologySociologySocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper discusses some results of a qualitative study that explored both student and educator viewpoints regarding the inclusion of spirituality in social work pedagogy. A grounded theory research methodology was used to analyze data obtained from semi-structured individual interviews completed with eighteen participants-eight educators and ten students. Data analysis uncovered the following pedagogical issues: delineating between spirituality and religion, the marginalization of spirituality, creating contexts for discussions about spirituality, making connections with theories and practices, and utilizing class exercises. The research analysis supports the need to become more intentional about including spirituality in social work pedagogy. Key Words: Spiritualitysocial work pedagogyeducationholistic practicecurriculum

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.365 · 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