Bibliographic record
Abstract
In die literatuur word dikwels na kinders as die sogenaamde ‘forgotten grievers’ verwys. Wat pastorale berading betref is daar in die verlede tydens sterfgevalle in ’n gesin soms meer op die volwassenes as op die kinders gefokus. Verliese wat egter nie tydens die kinderjare verwerk word nie, het ’n impak op die res van so ’n persoon se lewe. In hierdie artikel word die belangrikheid van kinders as volle lede van die geloofsgemeenskap (ook wat hulle emosies betref) beklemtoon. Aspekte soos die sinvraag, die beskermende- en helende effek van spiritualiteit en geloof, asook die belangrikheid van ’n Skrifgedeelte soos Lukas 18:15–17 met betrekking tot kleiner kinders kom vervolgens aan die orde. Die belangrikheid van die integrering van spiritualiteit en kreatiewe, ekspressiewe tegnieke en strategieë word ook uitgelig. Voorbeelde van laasgenoemde tegnieke word vervolgens aan die orde gestel terwyl ’n aantal praktiese riglyne ten opsigte van geloofsaspekte ter begeleiding van die kind wat ’n verlies ervaar het, ook daarna aandag geniet.Pastoral care of grieving children. Literature often refers to children as the so called forgotten grievers. In the past, during deaths in a family, pastoral counselling was sometimes more focused on the adults than on children. However, losses that are not processed during childhood will have an impact on the rest of such a person’s life. In this article, the importance of children as full members of the community of faith (also regarding their emotions) is emphasised. Aspects such as the question on meaning, the protective and healing effect of spirituality and faith, and the importance of a passage like Luke 18:15–17 with respect to smaller children are discussed. The importance of the integration of spirituality and creative expressive techniques and strategies are also explored. Examples of the latter techniques are discussed, while a number of practical guidelines on religious issues for the guidance of the child who has experienced a loss also receive attention.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.009 |
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".