Embedded spirituality: gardening in daily life and stressful life experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a limited body of research examining the relationship between spirituality and leisure, or the impact of leisure in the context of daily life, and life with stressful events. AIM: To examine the meaning of gardens and gardening across different life experiences using hermeneutic phenomenology to focus on the lived experience of leisure gardening. METHODS: Most participants were interviewed once in each season over a 1 year period usually in their home. There were 42 participants (27 women and 15 men) in this study. Fifteen individuals had been diagnosed with cancer and were in varying stages of diagnosis and treatment. Three people had a chronic and progressive disease. Four women were grieving the death of their spouse. Participants ranged in age from 32 to 80 years. RESULTS: In this paper, we focus on the spirituality-related themes in this study: spirituality as connectedness; spirituality as an expression of inner being; the garden as a spiritual place and gardening as spiritual activity; gardening as a spiritual journey; and, stewardship. Participants with religious views saw their garden as an extension of their spirituality and a confirmation of their beliefs. Participants with secular or sacred views of spirituality that was not related to any religious beliefs were more likely to embed their spirituality in their relationship with nature as manifested in their garden. CONCLUSION: This study extends current theory regarding leisure and its contribution to meaning focused coping, and spirituality as a significant component of leisure in living with stressful health and life events.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".