Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Spirituality is a vital component of whole person care; healing always involves body, mind, and spirit. We can anticipate the resolution of health problems holistically by providing correct physical, mental, and spiritual alignment to our dear patients. Alignment is accomplished both through the patients’ awareness of relaxation and self-care, and the harmonization and purification of the healing energy of the practitioner. Therefore, the patient and practitioner engage upon a healing journey through spiritual connection that vitalizes the process of medicine.Methods: Traditional Chinese Medicine has employed a physical, mental, and spiritual approach for thousands of years. Enhancing spirituality in medicine involved strengthening exercises of the body, mind, and spirit. Patients are encouraged to increase their awareness of themselves on each level. Practitioners should learn to cultivate positive healing energy that will enhance their medical practice. Qi Gong posture, breathing, phonation, and visualization exercises will be demonstrated to introduce Traditional Chinese Medical philosophy and practice.Results: Session participants will receive a general orientation to Traditional Chinese Medicine and learn specific skills in Qi Gong. Patients will learn greater attention to physical, mental, and spiritual alignment. Practitioners will learn to engage themselves for whole person healing, by understanding the relationship between patient and the practitioner.Conclusions: Spirituality is vitally important in medicine to enhance the quality of both its preventive and healing aspects. Treatment is a two way relationship. Practitioners must treat patients with good intentions. Patients must prepare for a healing process that engages them on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. Practitioners and patients, therefore, must work hand in hand, heart to heart, towards the goal of health and well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".