Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ritual can be described as an act which helps make sense of life, “there is what many people recognize as a spiritual quality to life, which in suffering, confronts people with questions and possibilities that reach beyond the immediate dilemmas of physical insult.” (Cobb and Robshaw, 1998); in this vein, ritual serves as a vehicle to navigate the inherent moments of sorrow and suffering in our lives. Fred Bird describes ritual as something which allows for communication, representation, meaning making, validation and relationing. (Bird, 1995)This presentation explores the ways in which creating accessible and significant contemporary rituals, within a hospital setting, may serve as a means to crystallize our deepest sensitivities for life, and living. It looks at some of the ways rituals can serve as a bridge to wholing and healing, within the patient, with family members and with health care professionals interacting with patient. Through examples from spiritual care counseling, within a multidisciplinary team setting, in neuro-palliative care, a path is set for some simple ways to ritually nurture quality of life issues, as part of a whole person care health protocol.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".