Diverse Voices: Children’s Perceptions of Spirituality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children (N = 64; 6-11 years, 50% boy) from different religious and cultural backgrounds were interviewed using open-ended questions concerning their spiritual thoughts, beliefs, and experiences. Additionally, parents completed a demographic questionnaire and reported children's religious affiliation. Regardless of children's religious background, eighteen overarching themes emerged in the transcripts and include: 1) Feeling Good/Happy/Better when Praying/Thinking about God, 2) God's Location , 3) God Helps, 4) God the Creator, 5) God Listens, 6) Different People have Different Beliefs, 7) Soul and Spirit, 8) Prayer Location, 9) Description of God, 10) Thanking God, 11) God Watches, 12) Praying to God when Feeling Bad (sadness, loneliness, death), 13) God and Nature, 14) Body and Prayer, 15) Description of Faith, 16) God and Miracles, 17) God Grants Wishes, 18) Belief and Non/Belief. Children's understandings of the role of the divine and the purpose of prayer may influence social-emotional development, adjustment, and coping. In future research, the participants' coded responses will be developed into items for a children's spirituality measure. Keywords: spirituality, children, diversity
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".