Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a recent example of a highly publicized case in Canada in which a family’s demands for life-sustaining treatment based on religious beliefs were pitted against a physician’s re-fusal to provide “inappropriate” care, this article critiques the suggestion that chaplains function as “religious interpreters” in bioethics cases that seek to determine the medical validity of religious beliefs. It argues that the chaplain as interpreter of religious beliefs and values requires a full vision of the chaplain’s unique and complex role in healthcare that (1) regards the patient not the chaplain as the “expert,” (2) utilizes a variety of key images of pastoral care, and (3) engages a process of dialogical hermeneutics. It concludes that in its broadest understanding and fullest appreciation beyond judgemental interpretation of facts alone pastoral care provides a helpful re-source to healthcare teams and an influential model in the art of ethics consultation that embraces uncertainty to build trust among stakeholders.
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 | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".