The Role of Religion & Spirituality in Nursing: Respecting What the Client Believes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of Chapter eleven is to encourage nurses to work with their client’s religious and spiritual values and not to discriminate when they differ from their own. The desire to believe in God or something beyond the physical is deemed universal. Theology, religion and spirituality are an integral part of the search for something more and what most religious and spiritual beliefs share is the notion that there is more to life than physical existence. The profession of nursing has a long and enduring history of a close association with spirituality and nursing has often been referred to as a mission or calling. It is argued that religious practices are still valid for present day nursing. The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) supports this stand and recognizes parish nursing as valid. The ethic of care can be viewed as a means to spiritual connection because, like religion, spirituality values the relationship between people and all that exists in life. Nurses are also strongly encouraged to consider implementing transcultural caring guidelines for spirituality into their practice. The Chapter ends with a Case in Point: When a practicing Christian is assigned to care for an Atheist.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".