Considering Spiritual Care for Religiously Involved LGBTQI Migrants and Refugees: A Tentative Map
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes research relevant to spiritual care for LGBTQI refugees and migrants. The literature indicates some distinct challenges faced by religiously involved LGBTQI migrants and refugees. LGBTQI migrants and refugees may not be able to experience family and religion as supportive compared to migrants and refugees who do not identify as LGBTQI. Such migrants and refugees thus face elevated levels of mental health challenges compared to non-LGBTQI refugees and they also face additional mental health risks compared to non-refugee LGBTQI adults and youth. Such risks include suicidality, depression, substance abuse, social isolation, internalised religious homonegativity, shame and risks to sexual health and a breakdown in the ability to trust others and caregivers. The paper identifies five seminal areas for extending care in the light of the research. These include building trust and properly assessing risk, working towards relational health, helping clients move to new ways of constructing and conceiving of family, easing the influence of internalised homonegativity and shame, and finding written and human resources that will be helpful to clients. These areas of care only present a tentative map as this issue requires more research and reflection.
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 | 0.034 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".