Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spirituality is an idea that has sustained significant interest in nursing over the past quarter century. Extensive conceptual work has generated robust critique around clarity and professional jurisdictional claims. However, less attention has been paid to the challenges nursing has faced that have contributed to the spirituality quest. Reflecting on my own experiences as a scholar writing in this literature over the past decade, I suggest three challenges that spirituality has attempted to redress: to relate across difference in a globalized world, to be good in a world of uncertain morality and to find meaning in a disenchanted world. The idea of spirituality could be viewed as resistance against othering, against law based ethics, and against politics and power. But the impact of the idea of spirituality has yet to be determined and caution is in order. As important as this resistance is, nursing must refrain from creating a new world of insiders and outsiders and from minimizing the role of religious ethics in a globalized world. Spirituality, like its predecessor religion, will likely continue to play an enduring role in providing fundamental meaning for nursing work.
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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".