Spirituality, medicine, and tradition. Some thoughts about<i>Hostility and Hospitality</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This book by authors Michael J. and Tracy A. Balboni offers a critique of the direction taken by medicine in the modern age. It is critical in the sense that, first, it identifies the shortcomings of current medical, or more generally, caregiving practice and, second, it proposes various ways (training, institutional organization, research, etc.) to correct the serious deficiencies identified. I subscribe willingly to the same critical tradition as the authors. Although I will diverge from their proposals on certain points, I agree with them that the spiritual discourse generated in Western healthcare establishments deserves critical attention, backed up by the resources of theological reflection alongside the contributions made in other fields of knowledge. I also believe that a theological critique can be constructive and help illuminate the spiritual experience during illness, leading to a fairer appraisal, by clinicians, of this facet of the experience of illness. My critical appraisal will cover the following topics: the theological assumptions underlying the Balbonis’ account of the development of medicine in the modern era, the idea of a spiritual therapy, and, finally, the spiritual anthropology that supports the structural pluralism model and its institutionalization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".