MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032040526 · doi:10.3928/01484834-20080401-05

Spirituality and Spiritual Care in Nursing Fundamentals Textbooks

2008· article· en· W2032040526 on OpenAlex
Barbara Pesut

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualitySpiritual carePsychologyContext (archaeology)CognitionExperiential learningNursingDichotomyPsychotherapistMedicineEpistemologyPedagogyAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educators are increasingly being called on to teach nursing students the fundamentals of spiritual care. The purpose of this study was to investigate and analyze what was being taught to nursing students about spirituality and spiritual care through nursing fundamentals textbooks. Findings of this study suggest that although this body of literature provides comprehensive content about spirituality and spiritual care, there are some underlying conceptual problems. The clear demarcation between spirituality and religion creates problematic dichotomies between patients' individual and cultural selves and their cognitive and experiential selves. Defining spirituality primarily by positive emotional descriptors and cognitive capacity tends to pathologize the basic human experience of suffering and marginalize those most vulnerable in society. Spiritual care is problematic in that it is difficult to identify what constitutes a uniquely spiritual intervention, the outcomes being proposed for care are questionable, and there is an assumption that nurses' spiritual worldviews are biases in the context of care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.377 · 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