Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: For schema therapy, significant weight is given to early experiences of social life. They lead to the creation of memories, largely implicit. These memories are reactivated in specific contexts and are often managed through dysfunctional strategies. Schema therapy seeks to modify these memories categorized as patterns. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), meanwhile, aims to transform our reactions linked to our learning history and to develop a greater flexibility taking into account what occurs in the present moment. Several techniques originate from the mindfulness tradition and seek to transform the individual into a witness of his own experience, rather than someone acting out patterns based on his learning history. Despite their different paradigms, it is possible to combine these approaches. As schemas manifest through somatic reactions, thoughts, affects, action tendencies, it becomes possible to try to change the relationship between the individual and these private experiences through the use of mindfulness, philosophical concepts and techniques derived from ACT. This is the aim of this article. METHOD: Essay presenting the use of a schema mindfulness flash card to help patients tolerate intense affects generated by the activation of schemas and to attain greater adaptive flexibility (Healthy Adult mode). CONCLUSION: It is possible to integrate ACT techniques and concept to schema therapy in order to facilitate adaptive flexibility.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".