Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The intention of this chapter is to re-envision mental illness within a paradigm that unites the biopsychosocial paradigm with a modern Buddhist spirituality, particularly associated with mindfulness. Emotion regulation, a balanced relationship with one’s self-concept, and social connection are usually regarded as essential components of well-being within both systems of thought. Western psychology and mindfulness practice have, at times, been seen to have fundamentally opposing aims: one to strengthen the self and the other to arrive at “no-self” or “emptiness.” This chapter purports that the two approaches may overlap and can be complementary both in their contribution to understanding the self and the regulation of emotions. Clinical narratives of depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and psychosis are included to exemplify the application of a whole-person outlook to understand mental illness. While an orientation to well-being through a mindfulness perspective may be generally helpful, mindfulness meditation is not a panacea: for some patients, it may be contraindicated, applied in a modified format, or used alongside medication and/or psychotherapy. This chapter presents a “middle way” between the views of suffering that informs mindfulness practice and that which is drawn from psychology and psychiatry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".