MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2398057813 · doi:10.1080/15426432.2015.1067586

The intersection between mindfulness and human rights:The case of Falun Gong and its implications for social work

2016· article· en· W2398057813 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maria Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work Social Thought · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisFaithSociologyEnvironmental ethicsHuman rightsMindfulnessBuddhismResistance (ecology)MoralityPolitical scienceLawPsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author reports on a qualitative study conducted with Falun Gong practitioners in Canada, and explores how a mindful meditative practice can facilitate peaceful resistance to global human rights violations. Falun Gong is a Chinese traditional meditative practice rooted in Buddhist and Daoist philosophies. The Falun Gong experience illuminates a global peace praxis that harmonizes an inward spiritual focus with an outward social action that integrates ethics, morality, and inner transformation in a collective manner through mindful meditative practice. Articulating a few lessons learned from the research, the author discusses how the mindful meditative practice of Falun Gong and practitioners’ peaceful resistance can help to expand social work’s engagement in the protection of human rights of people of faith on a global scale. The Chinese traditional mindful meditative practice of Falun Gong can help integrate personal, collective, and social transformation to uphold justice and to protect the human rights of all people of faith, which has implications for social work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0370.047
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work Social ThoughtSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207