Bibliographic record
Abstract
With emotion-focused mindfulness therapy (EFMT), we are exploring integrating mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) into the process-experiential (PE)/emotion-focused therapy approach, oriented to its neo-humanist principles, emotion theory, and dialectical constructivist epistemology. Both MBIs and EFMT value the role of implicit experience in meditation. While MBI meditation may include allowing the felt sense to arise, it does not specify symbolizing it in order to fully resonate with, receive and carry forward its implications. Instead, MBIs emphasize attending to present-oriented experience and decentering from and letting go of distractions from this, such as thoughts and feelings about the past or the future. In doing so, MBIs create optimal conditions for, but do not specify, experiential and emotional processing. In contrast, EFMT uses its emotion-focused perspective to integrate process-diagnostic, marker-oriented tasks such as focusing into meditation, journaling, and empathically exploring clients’ experience in order to deepen experiencing, address unfinished business and inner conflicts, better navigate life, and cultivate growth and flourishing. Research is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.254 | 0.004 |
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".