Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Following a review and analysis of Allen E. Bergin’s article “Psychotherapy and Religious Values,” this paper anticipates future directions for integrating clients’ religious and spiritual values in psychology and psychotherapy research and practice. The author argues that to support Bergin’s suggestion that such values are no longer “at the fringe of clinical psychology [but rather] at the center” of our comprehension of personality and its aspirations, researchers and clinicians in psychology need to go beyond the “methodolatry” denounced by Bergin and associated with probabilistic practices. For that purpose, she first presents the considerations of Experiential Ontological Phenomenology (EOP), to which the concept of will is added, as a methodological scientific foundation to a value-based model in psychotherapy. She then introduces the principal concept of this model, the fundamental value, presented in relationship with the second most important concept, the psychological nub, derived from psychoanalytic concepts. The third basic concept, the subjective process, borrowed from the humanistic approach, is mentioned as being included in the EOP theory. Finally, a brief case study demonstrates how this model constitutes a point of integration at which theistic values or belief systems and psychological studies and practice meet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".