MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922192975 · doi:10.1097/cnj.0000000000000570

Spiritual Care at the Bedside

2019· article· en· W2922192975 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Johnston Taylor, Carla Gober‐Park, Kathy Schoonover‐Shoffner, Iris Mamier, Chintan K. Somaiya, Khaled Bahjri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Christian Nursing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityPrayerConversationSpiritualitySpiritual carePsychologyFaithNursingSocial psychologyMedicineAlternative medicineTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about how nurses' personal spirituality and religious (S/R) beliefs impact their spiritual care of patients. An online survey was used to collect data from 445 nurses, assessing facets of religiosity, their opinions about introducing S/R during patient care, demographic, and work-related variables. Findings indicated that even in a sample of Christian nurses who scored high on religiousness measures, spiritual care is infrequent. Nurses' opinions about whether it was appropriate to initiate S/R conversation, self-disclosure, and prayer were associated with aspects of nurse religiosity. Nurses working in a faith-based organization were more likely to believe they could initiate S/R conversation and offer prayer.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Christian NursingSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207