Work with People in Mental Distress Who Access Spirituality/Religion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When social workers assist people in mental distress, complexity is added if clients self-identify as spiritual/religious. It can be challenging to know how to proceed in a helpful manner. Issues related to understanding what people are going through and how best to assist are centrally important for social workers to consider. To explore these concerns, we examine key social work ideas of social justice and holistic practice as related to spiritual/religious clients’ well-being. Following that analysis, main stream assumptions about mental illness from the medical model are reviewed. Mad Studies is then investigated with an emphasis on the term ‘mental distress’ which we have found to be a useful consideration to effectively work with people. This understanding is in harmony with holistic practice and social justice. From the insights gained from the literature, and our own experiences as counsellors, we explore constructive principles related to work with people in mental distress who are accessing spiritual/religious resources. To do this, we present a case study to review and propose strategies in working with spiritual/religious people experiencing mental distress.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".