A response to Dawson’s critical analysis of ‘spirituality as “integrative energy”’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dawson's reply to 'spirituality as integrative energy', particularly his objection to the appropriation of energy as a conceptual descriptor, demonstrates a woefully inaccurate and grossly misleading interpretation of my work. The purpose of this response is to challenge Dawson's assertion that such reformulation effectively strips spirituality of its historical meaning and to provide evidence of its appropriateness. I briefly consider the precepts underlying holism as a moral imperative for professional nursing, the traditional role of spirituality in health and illness, the rise of medical science and its eventual disjunction from metaphysics, and the his torical evolution of nursing. I also comment on the privileged nature of the nurse-client relationship and the social and moral obligation of nurses to engage in holistic practice. Finally, I suggest that the reconceptualization of spirituality as 'integrative energy' represents its dynamic, unifying nature and reassert my contention that 'integrative energy' is an entirely appropriate and eminently suitable definition of spirituality.
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 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".