MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171128860 · doi:10.1558/hscc.v7i2.39

THE INTRODUCTION AND EVALUATION OF A SPIRITUAL ASSESSMENT TOOL IN A PALLIATIVE CARE UNIT

2004· article· en· W2171128860 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Pierce, Frederic J. Koning

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Social Care Chaplaincy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritual carePalliative careUnit (ring theory)NursingPsychologyMedicineSpiritualityAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was undertaken to determine if individualised, formal spiritual assessment could impact on and optimise patient care within a Palliative Care Unit (PCU). The authors write on the benefits of formal spiritual assessment as undertaken by chaplaincy services. The Spiritual Assessment Tool (SAT) selected, introduced and evaluated for the PCU was the HOPE tool. The authors share the results of research into the effect and benefits that formal spiritual assessment had on members of the PCU's interdisciplinary team. The results highlight a positive impact, of the SAT, upon the various team members. The article explores and expresses the staff's enhanced understanding of the nature and extent of spiritual and religious needs and resources.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Social Care ChaplaincySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207