MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514449921 · doi:10.7748/nm.2016.e1455

The extent to which core nursing textbooks inform holistic spiritual care

2016· article· en· W2514449921 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualitySpiritual careNursingContext (archaeology)Health careInclusion (mineral)Consistency (knowledge bases)PsychologyReferralHolistic nursingMedicineAlternative medicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National and international professional health and nursing guidelines recommend that attention should be given to the spiritual and religious needs of patients. This suggests that spiritual care is an important aspect of holistic patient care that needs to be considered and supported, if relevant, in a healthcare context. However, many nurses lack knowledge and awareness of the subject, and it is unclear to what extent core textbooks provide the information they need. This article reports on a study that explored the extent to which contemporary core nursing textbooks support and advocate the provision of spiritual care by nurses. Its findings suggest there is a lack of consistency in the inclusion of spirituality in these texts, and few refer specifically to the need for spiritual assessment tools or referral to chaplains. As more attention is given to patients' spiritual needs, the guidance given by nursing textbooks needs to be more substantive and consistent.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it