From private to public: negotiating professional and personal identities in spiritual care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is an exploration of the challenge of negotiating the highly personalized concept of spirituality within the public sphere of professional-patient interactions. BACKGROUND: Spirituality has become increasingly prominent within the nursing discourse, and providing spiritual care is often positioned as an ethical obligation of care. However, bringing such a personal concept into the public domain of care creates some unique tensions and ethical risks. DISCUSSION: Nurses bring three potentially competing identities to spiritual care encounters with patients. Firstly, they are professionals with a public trust in health promotion and restoration, including those areas that intersect with spiritual health. Secondly, they are citizens of a liberal society where non-judgmental pluralism as it relates to spirituality is enshrined. Thirdly, they are individuals who hold particular beliefs and values about spirituality. Each of these identities may result in particular, and potentially conflicting, approaches to spiritual care. Ultimately, the identity which nurses choose to adopt is often determined by how they view themselves in the spiritual care encounter, either as experts with legitimate authority to intervene in the spiritual lives of patients or as people in a shared relational encounter. Each of these approaches carries ethical risks, although the nature of these risks is different. CONCLUSION: The identities which nurses bring to spiritual care encounters have far-reaching implications for patient experiences in those encounters. Nurses who position themselves as experts run the risk of objectifying the spiritual, being experienced as coercive and transcending nursings' competence. The work of Martin Buber is presented as a model that, while acknowledging competing identities, sets forth a vision of spirituality and spiritual care based upon relational reciprocity.
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 | 0.034 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".