MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401386466 · doi:10.1080/1756073x.2024.2383029

From disconnection to connection: the healing potential of household hospitality to the stranger

2024· article· en· W4401386466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beth Gould Nolson

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Theology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisconnectionHospitalityConnection (principal bundle)Power (physics)SociologyPsychologyKey (lock)Social psychologyPolitical scienceTourismLawEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article finds its origin in a hermeneutic phenomenological research study which examined the practice of hospitality to strangers by lay persons within private Canadian Christian homes. Special attention is given to key findings from the study which reveal the disconnection experienced by strangers, and the potential within hospitable encounters to contribute to healing human disconnection. The healing power of hospitality is explored through the voices of those who practice hospitality to strangers within their homes, the contributions of biblical texts regarding hospitality, and key tenets of Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT) which emphasize the healing potential of relational connection. Hospitality was found to have the potential to heal disconnection through the provision of welcome, physical, emotional, and spiritual care, relational connection, communal living, and the appropriate use of power. Through proximity and mutual connection, both host and guest experience growth-fostering relationships that move them from disconnection to connection.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.028
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractical TheologySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207