MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988037177 · doi:10.1080/14427591.2011.594548

The Meanings and Functions of Occupations Related to Spirituality for African Nova Scotian Women

2011· article· en· W1988037177 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brenda L. Beagan, Josephine Etowa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsBlessingSpiritualityContext (archaeology)PrayerGender studiesSingingMeaning (existential)SociologyRacismEmic and eticNova scotiaChristian ministryPsychologyReligious studiesHistoryTheologyAnthropologyEthnologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the meanings and functions of spiritually-related occupations for 50 African Canadian women in Nova Scotia, Canada. All but two women were affiliated with a Christian church. Using qualitative in-depth interviews, several spiritual occupations were identified by participants: prayer, Bible study, reading other sacred texts, private devotion, singing spiritual songs, and church-related activities such as committees, community ministry, choir, and leading Sunday school. These occupations were part of a holistic conception of health, and helped to protect against the psychological effects of racism. They connected women with church and spiritual communities, including ancestors. These communities and personal relationships with God gave women moral guidance for living according to their values and principles. Spiritual occupations were central to meaning-making, helping women reinterpret suffering as challenges accompanied by God's blessing, and providing hope through transcendence. For these women, spiritual occupations were part of surviving in the context of racism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational ScienceSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207