MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336935511 · doi:10.1080/19349637.2015.1064804

The Counseling Implications of Neurotheology: A Critical Review

2016· review· en· W2336935511 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Dixon, Gabrielle Wilcox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spirituality in Mental Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySpiritualityPsychotherapistMental healthPerspective (graphical)MysticismMedicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurotheology examines the relationship between religious, spiritual, and/or mystical experiences (RSMEs) and brain functioning. Attending to this relationship may increase counseling professionals’ competency in addressing their clients’ religious concerns. This article offers a brief overview of the interaction between neuroscience and religion; it also provides a critical perspective on neurotheology. An examination of the impact of RSMEs on brain functioning is also highlighted, which is followed by an exploration of the connection between religious experiences and mental health. The article also presents a discussion of the counseling implications of neurotheology, which will be of particular interest to counselors who work with spiritual and religious clients in their professional practice.

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spirituality in Mental HealthSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207