MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1763979417 · doi:10.1558/hscc.v3i1.26550

“All faiths and none”?

2015· article· en· W1763979417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Savage

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Social Care Chaplaincy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Spiritual careMedicinePastoral careFamily medicineBuddhismNursingAlternative medicineHistorySpirituality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly 10,000 records of visits by members of the Department of Spiritual Health Care to patients in St Thomas’ and the Evelina London Children’s Hospitals were analysed. Less than one percent of patients proactively sought support from the Department. Department initiated visits raised this to over three percent, with each patient being visited nearly three times on average. Increasing the availability and awareness of Muslim and Buddhist care providers resulted in a higher proportion of visits to patients with these religious beliefs. Despite nearly a quarter to half of all patients not being religious, only four percent of visits were to these patients. This indicates that the pastoral and spiritual needs of many patients who were not religious were not being met. This should be a serious cause for concern.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Social Care ChaplaincySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207