Impact of faith maturity on mental health and wellbeing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religion and spirituality (R/S) often have a protective effect on mental health, although there are instances where they can be detrimental. Much research has concentrated on measurable behaviors, while largely ignoring the deeper R/S constructs that drive these behaviors. Additionally, the diversity of R/S beliefs and practices held by patients and their health care providers has raised clinical concerns about discrimination, which can hinder the integration of research findings into clinical treatments. To address these issues, it is crucial to find improved ways to assess the core elements of R/S constructs that transcend specific traditions with implications for therapeutic interventions. This study aims to fill the existing gap by exploring how faith maturity affects mental health in a sample of psychiatric patients referred to a tertiary care center for outpatient treatment. Data collected from 150 participants was analyzed. Higher faith maturity predicted higher wellbeing, lower depression, and reduced suicidality. The nature of these relationships were expressed differently in men and women. These findings suggest that faith maturity needs to be considered in the clinical context of religious individuals, to guide the development of tailored interventions to promote mental health and wellbeing.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it