MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408079087 · doi:10.20897/femenc/16014

Social Justice in the Work of Women Healthcare Chaplains: A Feminist Analysis of Spiritual Activism

2025· article· en· W4408079087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sonya Sharma, Sheryl Reimer‐Kirkham

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Encounters A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial justiceSocial workSociologyHealth careGender studiesSocial activismEconomic JusticeCriminologyPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the fraught and intimate context of healthcare, women chaplains provide spiritual care to the suffering. In addition to listening and prayer, their spiritual care is often focused on equity and inclusion such as advocacy for the vulnerable amid broader social and economic crises. This article draws on data from qualitative interviews conducted with women healthcare chaplains in London, England and Vancouver, Canada. We note that while social structures affect disadvantages among healthcare constituents, women healthcare chaplains challenge these inequities through a spiritual care based in a transformative spirituality for social justice. We understand such forms of spiritual care as ‘spiritual activism’ building on the work of Anzaldúa (2002), Keating (2005) and Fernandes (2003) via an intersectional framing (Crenshaw, 1989). Expanding on this critical feminist work, we demonstrate contemporary workings of spiritual activism among women healthcare chaplains, which can alter the often-perceived divisions between religion and feminism, offer overlooked directions of analysis for chaplaincy studies, and highlight a group of women that have received scant attention in feminist and religious studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminist Encounters A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and PoliticsSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207