MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042684958 · doi:10.1080/10417940903474438

Assessing Predictions of Relational Prayer Theory: Media and Interpersonal Inputs, Public and Private Prayer Processes, and Spiritual Health

2011· article· en· W2042684958 on OpenAlex

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

VenueSouthern Communication Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrayerClosenessInterpersonal communicationPsychologySocial psychologyIdentity (music)Interpersonal relationshipTheologyAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theoretical linkages between communication sources (mediated and interpersonal), prayer (public and private), and spiritual health are derived from Relational Prayer theory. These relationships are empirically investigated using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Participants (N = 151) completed a written survey for extra credit. Mediated sources predicted frequency of private and public prayer better than interpersonal sources. Private and public prayers predicted better levels of spiritual health (closeness to God and strength of religious/spiritual identity). Overall, results provide initial support for the theoretical linkages. Suggestions for future research include expanding types of mediated sources to include new media technologies and exploring the dynamics of interpersonal prayer relationships.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.249 · 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