MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Muslim Nursing Student Beliefs about Possession States: An Exploratory Survey of Beliefs and Causal Attributions

2018· article· en· W2925301498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Marie Graham, Diana L. White

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBachelorPossession (linguistics)AttributionPsychologyFaithNursingMedical educationMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was undertaken to explore beliefs about Jinn, black magic and evil eye among Muslim nursing students at University of Calgary in Qatar (UCQ). The aim was to determine the extent and ways in which Muslim nursing students attribute physical and mental health problems to these perceived possession states. One hundred and twenty eight undergraduate nursing students who self-identified as adherents of the Islamic faith completed a survey concerning their beliefs in Jinn, black magic and evil eye. The sample included two streams of students: Bachelor of Nursing Regular Track (BNRT, N=44) and Post Diploma Bachelor of Nursing students (PDBN, N=75) who had already completed a nursing qualification and were in the process of completing the degree program. Results of the survey showed that 84.1 % of BNRT students and 73% of PDBNs believe that Jinn can possess or take over humans. The vast majority of students (BNRT 90.7%, PDBN 84%) believe in black magic while over 90% of BNRTs and PDBNs believe in the evil eye. This research adds to the limited literature available on beliefs regarding possession states among Muslim nursing students. It also provides information that can be used by faculty to better understand the prevailing beliefs and attitudes of nursing students.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of educational thought.Same topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207