Bibliographic record
Abstract
The motivations of people of faith in the helping field are often misunderstood. In social work, while there has been a growing interest in making space for integrating the clients’ spirituality and practice (Canda & Furman, 2010; Hodge, 2013), the role of the practitioners’ faith in practice has not received much attention. To this effect, there is a lack of conceptual framework that describes their aspirations in helping and caring and what such practice looks like in everyday reality.\nThis dissertation presents a two-part study each culminating in two different developments. First, in light of a missing conceptual framework, I conducted a content analysis of the work of Jane Addams, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jean Vanier, and Mary Jo Leddy. These five notable leaders in Christian wisdom tradition and public initiatives integrated their faith with practice, each working in different ways for the common good. I systematically reviewed and analyzed their work and abstracted key concepts and themes important to understanding their aspirations and practice. The culmination was the conceptual framework of faith-inspired praxis of love.\nTo refine the framework, I engaged in a multiple-site case study at three contemporary sites involving The Working Centre, Sanctuary Ministries of Toronto, and Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto. The second part of the study presents the site reports and an updated framework based on the new insights gained through field work. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of guiding processes and key elements of the framework and its relevance for social work.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".