Spirituality in Contemporary Paradigms: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As two of the most prominent cultural components, spirituality and religion give sense to our human values, conducts, and experiences. The spiritual dimension is one of the four significant aspects of holistic care. However, the diversity of views has resulted in different interpretations of the reality of spirituality and its origins and consequences. Aim: This study aimed to examine the available approaches and paradigms in the realm of spirituality. Method: In the present integrative review, the initial search was performed in national and international databases, including Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Sage, Medline, Wiley, SID, MagIran, IranMedex, and IranDoc, using the keyword, "spirituality", without considering any time limits. Articles relevant to the objectives of the study were then fully reviewed. Results: Since ancient times, spirituality has been sporadically discussed in human intellectual and artistic artifacts. This concept was expanded as an independent, systematic, and conscious movement since the second half of the 19th century in Europe, USA, and Canada. The three prominent approaches to spirituality include religious, secular, and holistic health perspectives. Implications for Practice: Despite the growing interest in research on spirituality, it is difficult to reach a unanimous decision about this concept. However, it should be noted that spiritual concerns cannot be disregarded, considering the holistic perspective to humanity as the building block of holistic nursing care. Overall, every patient is a unique human being whose spiritual needs are affected by his/her cultural beliefs and values.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".