GAPS IN TEACHING SPIRITUALITY IN UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I attempt to point out some of the gaps in Canadian undergraduate medical education as it is practiced at the present time due to our Canadian lack of recognition of the importance of the spiritual component in disease processes and their healing. My methodological approach to this topic is to attempt to review contemporary practice of the teaching of spirituality in Canadian medical schools. In order to accomplish my task of reviewing the teaching of spirituality in medical education, I initially contacted the librarians of both the Canadian Medical Association and The College of Family Physicians of Canada. It proved particularly difficult since the literature these librarians made available to me appeared to be mainly American and there is practically nothing comparable on the Canadian side. Both the American literature on spirituality in medical teaching, and the Canadian literature where it existed, were new to me. My hope was to find out what teaching on spirituality in medical practice occurred in Canada. However my initial review of the literature, facilitated especially by the Canadian Medical Association's librarian, resulted in primarily references to American studies. While our two countries have many similarities, there are certainly outstanding differences, one of which is the general population's attitude towards religion. While the Americans are in general a religious people the Canadians appear to be generally less so. In both countries, however, researchers in this area avoid the term religion, preferring the somewhat nebulous term "spirituality". But this term needs to be ' unpacked' for any particular audience. Also, when referring to the effects of 'spiritual' intervention what is actually often referred to ought to be termed religiosity.
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 | 0.035 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".