An Integrative Review of the Concept of Spirituality in the Health Sciences
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spirituality is a universal human phenomenon, yet confusion and incomprehension of the concept is ever-present. The purpose of this study was to explore how research on the concept of spirituality has been reported in the health literature in the past decade and develop an ontological and theoretical understanding of spirituality. The examination was based on quantitative and qualitative integrative review approaches, which integrated empirical research on spirituality. The sample included 73 spirituality research articles, which were published in English between January 1990 and September 2000. An electronic data-collection tool was designed for use in this project and formatted using Excel software for transfer of coded data into the NVivo software for the data analysis. The results identified essential elements of spirituality, current use of operational definitions and instruments, conceptual frameworks used in spirituality research, and cultural aspects of spirituality. Historical comparison among decades and barriers in researching spirituality are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it