The landscape of spiritual health and spirituality in Canada: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Currently, literature on spiritual health remains limited. Even more so, literature on spiritual health remains limited in Canada. This is exacerbated by the fact that spiritual health is a term that remains widely contested with no concrete definition. Meanwhile, the semantic connection between "religion" and "spirituality" remains ambiguous in the West and scholars hold different positions. In this paper, we outline our scoping review protocol to describe the current landscape of spiritual health and spirituality (in relation to health) research in Canada, including the meaning and understanding behind these two concepts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol for our scoping review is documented in accordance with the PRISMA-P reporting guidelines and adheres to Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology. We will conduct a search strategy across select electronic databases and review the reference lists of chosen papers. Two reviewers, HMB and MM, will independently and blindly screen all title/abstracts and full-text studies for eligibility. Any Canadian-situated studies that centrally mention and focus on "spirituality" or "spiritual health" will be included. Relevant variables will be extracted through an iterative process, with the data charting being continuously reviewed and refined. Findings from this scoping review will support the future of health research and conceptual expansion of health beyond the mental, physical and social. Approval from a research ethics board is not required, nor has it been obtained, as the data is derived from journal articles and academic publications.
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 | 0.173 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.012 |
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".