Fruitful collaborations with religious and spiritual communities to foster mental health in general society: An international perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborations between mental health professionals (including psychiatrists) and spiritual care professionals/members of faith communities have been recommended by the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) and several national psychiatric organizations – to help attain high quality and equitable mental health care. Nonetheless, some are concerned about potential harms of such collaborations. It is imperative that such collaborations be ethical and person-centred. The diverse range of individuals who might be regarded as members of spiritual/religious communities also leads to significant variations in how these collaborations may occur. While the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Mental Health and Faith Community Partnership has presented one such model of collaboration at the national level, this chapter endeavours to illustrate the diverse forms, levels, cultural and geographical contexts of how these collaborations may occur – through the perspectives of mental health and spiritual care professionals from Canada, Hong Kong and India. Implications from these examples are also explored.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".