Des psychologues en pleine conscience. Tension entre légitimation scientifique et adhésion morale dans la recherche sur le mindfulness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours des deux dernières décennies, l’étude scientifique dumindfulness, traduit par «pleine conscience », a pris des proportions inégaléesen multipliant de manière exponentielle ses champs d’application et le nombrede ses publications. Dans un contexte historique où le développement de lapleine conscience en Amérique du Nord s’est continuellement joué sur lafrontière entre le spirituel et le laïc, cet article interroge le mode d’engagementde chercheurs et chercheuses en psychologie vis-à-vis de l’objet mindfulness. Enexaminant les logiques sociales, morales et épistémologiques à l’œuvre danscette science de la pleine conscience, l’analyse montre qu’elle est traverséepar une tension entre légitimation scientifique et adhésion morale. Celle-ci serévèle au travers de discours valorisant, d’une part, le répertoire scientifiquecomme registre de justification et, d’autre part, la prise en compte du caractèreexistentiel, expérientiel et moral des pratiques de pleine conscience.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".