Original Research Spirituality and Religion in Canadian Psychiatric Residency Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatry has traditionally distanced itself from spiritualand religious issues. Freud described religion as “a uni-versal obsessional neurosis... a regression to primary narcis-sism ” (1), a view influenced by his personal, conflicted, experiences of faith and religion (2). Early drive theories iden-tified religion as suppressing normal sexual desires and thus contributed for decades to psychoanalysts ’ view of religion as a source of guilt and dependency. Today, psychiatrists retain a general discomfort about addressing religious or spiritual is-sues in clinical work and research. The “anti-tenure ” effect of Can J Psychiatry, Vol 48, No 3, April 2003 171 Objective: Mental health professionals are increasingly aware of the need to incorporate a patient’s reli-gious and spiritual beliefs into mental health assessments and treatment plans. Recent changes in assessment and treatment guidelines in the US have resulted in corresponding curricular changes, with at least 16 US psychiatric residency programs now offering formal training in religious and spiritual issues. We present a survey of training currently available to Canadian residents in psychiatry and propose a lecture series to
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".