MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921679184 · doi:10.1097/cnj.0000000000000575

Nurses' Perspectives on Spiritual Caregiving

2019· article· en· W2921679184 on OpenAlexaff
Kyla C. Janzen, Sheryl Reimer‐Kirkham, Barbara Astle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Christian Nursing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeSpiritual carePsychologyInterpersonal communicationNursingInterpersonal relationshipSpiritualityQualitative researchSocial psychologyPsychotherapistMedicineSociologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative secondary analysis explored the narratives of 14 nurses from various practice settings. Data analysis identified that although nurses share responsibility for spiritual caregiving for their patients, the ability to provide this care is greatly influenced by intrinsic and the extrinsic factors. Spiritual caregiving was seen as both a discrete act that facilitated patients' spiritual practices and, in other situations, took the form of integrative spiritual caregiving that was part of the interpersonal connection in the nurse-patient relationship.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Christian NursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207