Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need to attend to the spiritual and religious dimensions of a person’s worldview and frame of reference is an axiom of spiritually-sensitive practice, but practice models and processes for facilitating this kind of integrative understanding are few. This paper addresses this gap. Reported are findings from an interpretive study that utilized a novel method of in-depth reflective inquiry to access and analyze the experienced knowledge of frontline practitioners regarding ways of understanding the meanings, and the source of meanings, that people use to interpret their experiential reality. What emerged in the analysis was not a toolbox of assessment techniques, but rather an integrative model for spiritually and culturally sensitive practice – a model grounded in interwoven capacities to navigate complexity, to inquire reflexively, to think critically, and to engage interpretively in an inductive, improvisational and dialogical process of co-creating space for shared understanding of meanings that people use to interpret the world and their place in it.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.007 |
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".