Exploring the Experiences of Social Workers Using Spirituality in Their Practice
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
Despite decades of discussion, spirituality remains a neglected area of social work education and practice. This study explored the experiences and perspectives of seven social work practitioners in Alberta who are actively incorporating spirituality into their practice through qualitative interviews. The findings indicated the ways these practitioners are using spirituality in their direct work with clients, the relationship between their own personal spirituality and their work, and the ways in which their specific practice context influences their use of spirituality in practice. Despite a lack of guidance with respect to spirituality in their social work education and training, participants were drawing on their own experiences and resources to inform their use of spirituality in practice. While this highlighted the resourcefulness of the participants, it also raised ethical questions about the implications of this more broadly within the social work profession. Implications for social work education, practice, and policy and recommendations for future research are also outlined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 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