MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417051007 · doi:10.1080/03057240.2025.2586853

Sacred moments as a source of life altering change: Insights from psychological theory and research

2025· article· en· W4417051007 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth I. Pargäment, Serena Wong, Julie J. Exline, Kathleen C. Pait

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Moral Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological TheoryPsychological researchInterpretation (philosophy)Construct (python library)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines recent work on an epiphanic construct that has begun to receive attention in the psychological literature—sacred moments. Sacred moments are brief periods of time in which people experience a sense of transcendence, boundlessness, ultimacy, deep interconnectedness, and spiritual emotions. The paper begins by considering the concept of sacred moments, noting how they overlap with and depart from related constructs, such as self-transcendence, mysticism, and peak experiences. Even though sacred moments are extraordinary experiences, they are relatively commonplace and can be found in many contexts. We review emerging empirical and interpretive research that links sacred moments to life-altering change, including character strength and moral growth. After discussing possible antecedents to sacred moments, the paper explores how sacred moments can be cultivated through mental and spiritual health practices in the contexts of healthcare and education.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.048
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Moral EducationSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207