Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is designed to open a conversation about the place of spirituality in social work, highlight possible ethical issues, and question whether spirituality, as defined by social work and popular culture, is an immutable part of human development. Additionally, the role of social work in conducting spiritual assessments and interventions is specifically challenged, along with examples of how the misuse of spirituality can harm clients. The article also suggests that the profession would benefit from adopting an evidence-based concept of spirituality and establishing accountability standards. Findings: Until more is known about spirituality, social workers may want to consider: (1) placing a moratorium on using and developing spiritual assessment instruments until the concept can be accurately defined; (2) omitting words linked to religious symbols such as soul, anointing, blessing, etc. in social work practice; (3) conducting spiritual screenings rather than complete spiritual assessments, and (4) referring clients with spiritual questions or wanting spiritual support to experts known not to blame or harm clients and trained in the specific area of concerns expressed by the person. Applications. The time has come for social work to establish ethics, accountability, and limitations on the practice of spirituality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".