Intersections of Compassion, Science, and Spiritual Care in Global Health for Public Health Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across the globe, spiritual care is offered by individuals, healthcare chaplains, and humanitarian, social and related spiritual groups on account of zeal, voluntary and paid services. Sometimes, services are provided without understanding the connectivity of compassion, spiritual care, and scientific protocols. There are instances where health professionals and managers disagree with spiritual caregivers or reject spiritual services because of poor service deliveries in conflict with healthcare protocols. Against this background, this article focuses on how spiritual care services can be provided scientifically to improve service delivery. It presents leading questions to link the scientific and compassionate approach to spiritual care. These include-What is science? What is compassion? What is spiritual care? What makes compassion and spiritual care scientific? Are there tenets of compassion in religions? How are compassion, science and spiritual care linked? What are the implications of the intersections for public health and safety? Hopefully, the provided answers may improve the service delivery performance of spiritual caregivers and their collaboration with healthcare professionals, social workers, and related groups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".