MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010505561 · doi:10.1002/shi.357

An exploration of spirituality, spiritual beliefs and paediatric rehabilitation

2008· article· en· W2010505561 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Baldwin, Janette McDougall, Jan Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueSpirituality and Health International · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsThames Valley Children's Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityRehabilitationContext (archaeology)PsychologySpiritual careQualitative researchService providerMedical educationNursingService (business)MedicineSociologyAlternative medicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents key concepts related to spirituality that are meaningful to a community‐based paediatric rehabilitation centre in Ontario, Canada, for the provision of holistic care for children and youth with disabilities and their families. These key concepts were identified through an extensive review of quantitative and qualitative studies from relevant areas of research. Discussions around the concepts then took place with service providers from multiple disciplines, administrators, advisory board members, childhood disability researchers and parents of children and youth with disabilities. Practice implications from the literature and from the discussions resulted in six recommendations related to implementation of holistic care to address the spiritual needs of children and youth with disabilities and their families within the context of paediatric rehabilitation. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpirituality and Health InternationalSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207