Capturing Presence Moments: The Art of Mindful Practice in Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper explores theoretical and practical views of mindfulness and phenomena of presence moments. The potential for altering life and enabling change through lived experience of mindful presence moments has relevance for occupational therapy practice. PURPOSE: To suggest ways for occupational therapists to become mindfully present during practice. Based on theoretical perspectives drawn from the fields of psychology, philosophy, psychoanalysis, neuroscience, and education, a four-fold approach will be outlined for occupational therapists to practice mindfully and experience presence moments. KEY ISSUES: This approach emphasizes key concepts of awareness, non-judgment, reflection, curiosity, and commitment to practice. A clinical scenario is used to illustrate the approach. IMPLICATIONS: The ideas raised in this paper need to be incorporated into daily practice by occupational therapists so that a culture of mindful practice can be cultivated. Suggestions are provided throughout the paper for an agenda of potential research studies to address aspects of mindfulness and presence moments more fully.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".