The Experience and Practice of Adult Educators in Addressing the Spiritual Dimensions of the Workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative research study was to examine the connections between the workplace, spirituality and adult education by listening to the voices of 5 adult educators who are incorporating spirituality into their practice within their various workplace settings. Findings reveal that all participants described their spirituality as evolving and changing over time and as no longer limited to their religious heritage. As they linked their spirituality to their workplaces their central vocation was a desire to make their workplaces more just and compassionate. The energy they placed within this social advocacy role was directly dependent upon their workplaces' comprehension and desire to become a spiritually infused setting. Résumé Le but de cette étude qualitative était d'évaluer les liens qui existent entre le milieu de travail, la spiritualité et l'andragogie, en se penchant sur l'expérience de cinq formateurs, qui incorporent la spiritualité dans leur pratique professionnelle. Les conclusions de cette recherche révèlent que l'expérience spirituelle des participants a évolué et s'est transformée avec le temps et qu'elle n'est plus limitée à leur héritage religieux. En liant leur expérience spirituelle à leur engagement professionnel, leur vocation première était de rendre leur milieu de travail plus juste et empathique. La somme d'énergie déployée dans ce rôle de promotion sociale était directement proportionnelle au degré de compréhension et au désir de leurs collègues de faire de leur milieu de travail un endroit inspiré de valeurs spirituelles.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".