MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310030427 · doi:10.1177/00916471221137546

The Clergy Resilience Model: A Tool for Supporting Clergy Well-being

2022· article· en· W4310030427 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Allison Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychology and Theology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsBriercrest College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Resilience (materials science)Psychological resilienceFace (sociological concept)PsychologyProcess (computing)Social psychologySociologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Clergy Resilience Model is a theoretical framework with a systemic perspective that is useful to denominations, individual clerics, and therapists in supporting clergy resilience and well-being. This article describes the development of this framework specific to clergy. As there is limited literature on the nature of clergy resilience or the specific variables that enable clergy to positively adapt to the challenges and adversity they face, the Clergy Resilience Model provides a useful framework to begin to understand clergy resilience as a dynamic process. The Clergy Resilience Model highlights the balance between adversity clergy encounter and supportive resources they have access to, as well as the overarching influence of key spiritual factors on clergy resilience. The Clergy Resilience Model was developed as a tool that may help clergy resilience both on an individual and systemic level by creating awareness of critical factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychology and TheologySame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207