Organ Donation and Religion: An Annotated Bibliography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This brief annotated bibliography presents a synopsis of select literature on the topic ‘Organ Donation and Religion’ published between 1993 and 2017. The purpose is to review existing research from authoritative sources and to determine the beliefs of the general public versus those of religious experts on the topic. Searched databases include Scholars Portal, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the University of Ottawa Library databases on the ProQuest platform. Although there are several studies which discuss in broad terms the influence of religion on the beliefs and attitudes toward organ donation, few studies explore the beliefs and practices of Muslims in relation to organ donation. As shown in the annotated bibliography, the majority of the articles reviewed indicate multiple barriers to organ donation and transplantation in which religion is often a factor. Organ donation is considered controversial and ethically ambiguous, because it is neither condemned nor encouraged in any religious texts. With the uncertainty and lack of guidance related to organ donation and transplantation in a religious context, we have organized our selected publications under two themes: public opinion and expert opinion. Several of the articles also offer and examine solutions or proposals for organ donation recruitment in religious communities, and how health care systems, along with the professionals working within them, can better understand and accommodate their fears and needs. It is important to note that although much of the research is international, many articles originated from United Kingdom, Australia, and Turkey.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".