Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chaplaincy and Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) in the health care setting can and should approach their ministries more scientifically, primarily by incorporating the methods and results of quantitative and qualitative research. Such an approach, however, should have a carefully considered rationale. Proponents of a scientific approach should avoid associating their advocacy with dubious notions of health care "reform." They should attend to the perceptions--and fears--that chaplains may have of "science" and research as these affect pastoral care. In particular, fears for professional and programmatic survival should be recognized for their potential to predispose chaplains either favorably or unfavorably toward a scientific approach. Ultimately, chaplains should increase their openness to scientific methods in order to learn more about their ministry and improve their practice, without expecting that the adoption of research methods will be a magical solution to the problems posed by the current environment.
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 | 0.086 | 0.223 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.048 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.015 |
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".