Bibliographic record
Abstract
n my spiritual direction training (1997-1999), the focus of ministry was the client’s relationship with God. This involved inviting clients to explore their beliefs, prayer life, and different life experiences with the purpose of noticing how God’s spirit was guiding and shaping their life. In my pastoral counselling training (2001-2006), the focus of ministry was different. Here, the focus was on helping clients experience healing and greater wholeness through psychological insight and techniques. Beyond the practice of some theological reflection and an occasional prayer within my sessions, there was little emphasis on the dynamics of God’s spirit within the counselling session or in my client’s life. As a result, I was operating with two very different models of spiritual care, and they did not inform each other very much. With the Diamond Approach, I found an extensive sacred psychology that made it possible to integrate my counselling training and experience into my spiritual direction ministry. Now, as I helped my clients explore their God relationship and the various experiences arising from the depths of their soul, I began to use insights and practices that echo my pastoral counselling training. This allowed my clients to work at the blockages
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".