Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clergy wellness is of keen interest to church leadership in recent years as mainline Canadian churches face rapid decline. The financial diminishment of the church has led to fewer clergy looking after more churches, and larger churches having fewer staff. The result is increased demands on clergy’s time and energy that pose a challenge to their wellness. Given this current reality, the importance of understanding what can support clergy wellness is crucial. The purpose of this research is to explore the question: “What is the experience of Anglican priests in the Diocese of Huron as they engage in supportive spiritual practices?” Through this research, a more thorough exploration of clergy’s narrated experience of their supportive practices has led to a deeper understanding of how these practices support wellness. Interviews were conducted with thirteen priests of the Diocese of Huron and analyzed using Jean Clandinin’s (2013) qualitative method of Narrative Inquiry. Themes that emerged from the research were as follows: care for their bodies, maintenance of their personal boundaries, nurture of their self-awareness, maintenance of their social support, clergy focus on effective communication, and linking their personal narrative with their understanding of the larger narrative of the Gospel. This research project provides the Diocese of Huron with insight into priests’ experience of spiritual practices and will be a helpful resource in supporting priests as they engage in their vocations. Further research is needed into the identified sub-theme of the congregational dynamic that sees increased expectations from congregation members when their clergy-person is in crisis. Also needed is further research into the identified theme of the experience of clergy as they place their own narratives inside and outside their understanding of the narrative of the Gospel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".