MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412394142 · doi:10.1080/13617672.2025.2523816

Religion and spirituality in social work education and practice: a review and thematic analysis

2025· review· en· W4412394142 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Babando, Stephanie Laing, Danika A. Quesnel, John R. Graham, Arielle Lomness

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Beliefs and Values · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityThematic mapThematic analysisWork (physics)SociologySocial workEngineering ethicsPedagogySocial sciencePolitical scienceQualitative researchMedicineEngineeringGeographyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English language social work scholarship on religion is examined from 2008 to 2021. Of the 255 peer-reviewed journal articles, most are by American first authors and on topics relating to Christianity, followed by Islam and Judaism. Thematically, the scholarship explores religious sensitivity, cultural inclusion, and practice; understanding religious philosophies and teachings to practice effectively; secularisation and the profession; and incorporating mindfulness and related ways of knowing into social work practice. Trends from the pre-2009 period are congruent with current trends, providing a reassuring continuity in the research. However, greater emphasis is now placed on specific tactics of religiously informed intervention and the growing place of secularisation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.410 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Beliefs and ValuesSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207