Synthesis: A Poetic Exploration of the Integral Model Investigating the Interconnected Strands of Mindfulness in Our Educational Landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a researcher, I am seeking a mode of inquiry that would allow for a reflection on mindfulness and the role it plays in curriculum and learning. Needing to merge my personal voice with the diverse educational landscape, I found that poetic storytelling allowed me to “present possibilities for understanding the complex, mysterious, even ineffable experiences that comprise human living” (Chambers, Hasbe-Ludt, Leggo, & Sinner, 2012, p. xx). Using first-person auto-ethnographical narrative as a research methodology and the Integral Model as a theoretical framework (Wilber, 2000, 2006, Wilber, Patten, Leonard, & Morelli, 2008), the interconnected strands of mindfulness are synthesized within the four quadrants of the model. Self, Science, Storytelling, and Systems are components of mindfulness that together formulate a holistic understanding as “integral theory weaves together the significant insights from all major human disciplines of knowledge, including natural and social science as well as the arts and the humanities” (Visser, 2003).Keywords: education; narrative inquiry; qualitative research
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".