Music and spirituality: Explanations and implications for music therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature in music therapy suggests a need for greater clarity and insight concerning correlations between music and spirituality for the modern clinician. The purpose of this article is to provide a clear explanation of these correlations and some possible implications for the practice of music therapy. My method is one of ‘reflective synthesis’ – combining theoretical knowledge from several disciplines with my own, practical experience with clients – to bring forward key working, concepts. This will include (1) presenting a rationale for the therapist’s study of spirituality; (2) clarifying some basic terms; (3) asking three important questions concerning a human life and viewing them through the lens of spirituality and music; (4) linking the first of these questions to awareness of transcendence; (5) answering the second question in light of purpose and meaning; (6) explaining how spirituality provides connection to the other; (7) illustrating the correlations in a clinical vignette, and as a conclusion; (8) suggesting implications this may have for the music therapist; and (9) offering some reasonable cautions for integrating spirituality into a music therapy 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".