Fibromyalgia and the Feldenkrais method: Action research examining the teacher–student dynamic in transfer of learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This action research brought together a group of Feldenkrais teachers and two groups of primarily female students living with fibromyalgia. The aim of the study was to work together to develop ways to allow the students to transfer knowledge acquired during weekly Feldenkrais lessons into their everyday lives. Based on the analysis of the empirical data collected, the research team developed a theoretical model of transfer of learning that calls attention to the importance of the student–teacher dynamic in the transfer of learning process. While this process may be different for each person, we argue that it occurs in three identifiable stages: (1) learning about the Feldenkrais method in the classroom; (2) applying the content and/or pedagogy of the Feldenkrais classes in everyday life; and (3) integrating knowledge gained through Feldenkrais classes into various spheres of one’s life. Despite the positive testimonies obtained throughout this action research, the authors of this article emphasize that the Feldenkrais method should not be seen as a panacea. Emphasis on the first-person experience, which is the basis of the Feldenkrais method, may run the risk of depoliticizing the broader social forces that contribute to the production and reproduction of fibromyalgia.
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 | 0.029 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".