Religious and/or Spiritual Practices: Extending Spiritual Freedom to People with Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It continues to be a challenge to define and utilize spirituality in client-centred occupational therapy practice. Dialogue about spirituality is especially problematic for occupational therapists working with people with schizophrenia. PURPOSE: To explore the meaning of religion and/or spirituality for people living with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. METHODS: Nine community-based individuals with schizophrenia engaged in interviews about the meaning of religion and/or spirituality and demonstrated self-defined spiritual practices. Phenomenology, hermeneutic theory, and a symbolic interactionism framework provided methodological and analytic guidance. FINDINGS: Participants employed religious and/or spiritual practices to cope with schizophrenia symptoms and make meaning of their lives. Individuals used multiple systems of meaning to explain their experiences. Religious and/or spiritual agency, an individual's sense of freedom to choose among the spiritual options, renewed their sense of empowerment. IMPLICATIONS: Therapists can engage in spiritual negotiation with clients by using well-worded empowering questions toward a common goal of life enhancement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".