Inviting passage to new discourse: ‘Alive moments’ and their spiritual significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some social constructionists assert that therapeutic change occurs when clients' meanings for problems and solutions shift from those found in resource‐impoverished discourses to those affording resourceful and preferred possibilities. Referred to as ‘positioning theory’, our research examined this assertion by inviting clients and therapists to speak of a significant, but ambiguous, experience in unfamiliar discourse: spiritual discourse. Clients were asked to review videotapes of their sessions, selecting moments that felt most ‘alive’ to them for discussions with the researcher, including inquiries as to whether ‘alive’ moments held any spiritual significance. The outcomes are portrayed as a ‘poetic collaboration’ between the researcher, clients and therapists — while clients' and therapists' reported experiences for changes in discourse and meaning are highlighted. Implications regarding sensitivities required when co‐constructing meanings for ambiguous but significant experiences in therapy are discussed. Possibilities for more research examining poetic practices and processes in therapy are also considered in terms of positioning theory.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".