MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1512722533 · doi:10.1300/j080v13n01_03

The Search for Truth: The Case for Evidence Based Chaplaincy

2002· letter· en· W1512722533 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Care Chaplaincy · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityRegional Municipality of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityPastoral careHealth careRelation (database)NursingScientific evidencePosition (finance)Spiritual carePsychologySociologyEnvironmental ethicsMedicinePolitical scienceLawEpistemologyAlternative medicinePhilosophyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chaplaincy and medical science are in search of truth. Should chaplaincy become more scientific in response to health care reform? Yes is the answer. Chaplaincy ought to become more based in evidence for the following reasons. First, the health care culture is evidence based and chaplaincy needs to speak that language. Second, chaplaincy and science are not opposed. Third, tradition-driven chaplaincy already utilizes medical evidence. Fourth, spirituality is the domain of chaplaincy and other health care disciplines have provided the research in our domain. However, if chaplaincy becomes more scientific, it does not mean that chaplaincy will maintain or grow in its position in health care reform. Health care reform in relation to chaplaincy is driven more by values than evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it