MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4224065714 · doi:10.1177/15423050221092317

Spiritual Care Professionals as Unit-Based Interdisciplinary Team Members? Considering Patient and Staff Perceptions in a Forensic Mental Health Care Setting

2022· article· en· W4224065714 on OpenAlexaff
Clark Patrick Heard, Jared Scott, Rev’d Stephen Yeo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pastoral Care & Counseling Advancing theory and professional practice through scholarly and reflective publications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthSpiritualityPerceptionInterpretative phenomenological analysisMental health careNursingSpiritual carePsychologyUnit (ring theory)Qualitative researchHealth careMedical educationMedicinePsychotherapistSociologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project considers two co-occurring studies accounting perceptions of patients (n=8) and staff (n=8) related to assignment of Spiritual Care students as full-time interdisciplinary team members at a Forensic mental health facility. Students on 12-week placements were individually assigned to care units. Qualitative method consistent with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was employed. The co-occurring studies identified that enhanced access to Spiritual Care was valued. Staff and patients indicated a desire for more spirituality focused participation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pastoral Care & Counseling Advancing theory and professional practice through scholarly and reflective publications→Same topicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology→French-language works237,207→