Re-Authoring Spiritual Narratives: God in Persons' Relational Identity Stories
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In important ways, the shift toward social constructionist therapies in marriage and family therapy is opening the door to include spiritual and religious issues in therapy. This article explores the benefits of using narrative therapy with religious and/or spiritual persons with regard to their personal relationship with God. A rationale is given for personal identity stories to be recast as relational identity stories. Relationships are seen as key factors in the constitution and perpetuation of one's identity story. Re-authoring spiritual narratives draws on a person's relationship with God and how this relationship influences the relational identity story of the person. The practices of externalizing conversations, deconstruction, exploring unique outcomes, re-authoring, and re-membering are explained as used in working with a person's relational identity stories and relationship with God. Examples of questions are given for each practice. Throughout the discussion, an account of a woman the first author worked with in therapy is given for illustration of these ideas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it