MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123692590 · doi:10.1016/j.jana.2008.08.003

Spiritual Well-Being and Spiritual Practices in HIV-Infected Women: A Preliminary Study

2008· article· en· W2123692590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eileen G. Scarinci, Mary T. Quinn Griffin, Adriana Grogoriu, Joyce J. Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Active listeningQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologySpiritual careSpiritual practiceMedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyAlternative medicineFamily medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today in the United States, women account for more than one quarter of all HIV diagnoses; globally, HIV is the leading cause of death among women ages 35 to 44 years. There is a growing body of research regarding spirituality among those who are infected with HIV. The purposes of this quantitative descriptive study were to (a) describe two dimensions of spirituality (spiritual well-being and spiritual practices), and (b) determine relationships between these dimensions of spirituality in HIV-infected women. Participants were 83 HIV-infected women. The average age of the women was 43 years, and the majority of the participants were African American (62%). The three most frequently used spiritual practices were praying alone, helping others, and listening to music. A high level of spiritual well-being was evident among the participants, and a positive relationship was shown between spiritual well-being and number of spiritual practices used. Recommendations for future research are included.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS CareSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207