Narrative Therapy and Mindfulness: Intention, Attention, Ethics. Part 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the second of a matched pair of articles that present concepts and practices for expanding the territory of narrative therapy to include working with attention and present moment awareness. The first article explored similarities and differences between narrative therapy and attentional practices derived from Buddhist traditions frequently associated in western contexts with the term “mindfulness.” That piece proposed that both narrative and mindfulness support persons in enacting ethical choice, but the process differs in the two traditions. Narrative is preoccupied with stories or discourses, which are externalized, making space for the performance of alternatives. Mindfulness practices key in on attention, supporting persons in relinquishing the grasp on a never-ending flow of mental phenomena. Narrative seeks to liberate our storying capacity; mindfulness seeks to liberate our attention. Both traditions support persons in living in a manner congruent with their values; we have called this ethical intentionality. This companion article offers examples of how these two traditions can be co-mingled in therapeutic practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".