MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143890012 · doi:10.1177/089801010101900105

Strengthening Transcendent Meaning

2001· review· en· W2143890012 on OpenAlexaff
Julia D. Emblen, Barbara Pesut

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Holistic Nursing · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Psychological interventionSpiritual carePsychologyPsychotherapistSpiritualityNursingSocial psychologyEpistemologyMedicinePhilosophyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to present a model for the spiritual nursing care of patients experiencing suffering. Meaningless suffering can lead to spiritual disintegration. However, the finding of transcendent meaning in the suffering experience can be a profound attenuator of how the suffering is experienced. This model outlines five categories for a comprehensive spiritual assessment: (a) authority and guidance, (b) experience and emotions, (c) community, (d) rituals and practices, and (e) vocation and consequences. For each of the five categories, interventions are identified that could strengthen transcendent meaning in the suffering.

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 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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Holistic NursingSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207