There be dragons: effects of unexplored religion on nurses’ competence in spiritual care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On ancient maps unexplored lands were simply labeled 'there be dragons' indicating the fear that attends the unknown. Despite three decades of theoretical and empirical work on spirituality in nursing, evidence still suggests that nurses do not feel competent to engage in spiritual care. In this paper I propose that one of the reasons for this is a theory-theory gap between religion and spirituality. Generalized anxiety about the role of religion in society has led to under-theorizing in nursing about religious care. As a result, when religion and spirituality overlap at the point of care, nurses are left without the substantive knowledge required for practice. Robust religious theorizing should include thick accounts of lived religion and integrative work that enables nurses to understand commonalities across religions that are relevant to practice. As a starting point to this integrative work, nurses can be introduced to the nature and lexicon of lived religion, religious perspectives on suffering, and religious reasoning that holds meaning and mystery in tension. Such an approach will better prepare them for the realities of practice where the complexities of spirituality and religion come to play.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".