Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Narrative Practice: A Practically Grounded Examination of Theories and Worldviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines and contributes to the recent dialogue on narrative therapy and mindfulness (including embodiment, affect, and neuroscience) and the possibilities and dangers in combining them. To make this dialogue clearer, this article focuses on an epistemologically consistent approach to mindfulness, as found in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). It focuses on a particular practice, Steven C. Hayes's “Guided Audio Meditation” that explores problem and preferred stories, and analyzes it using the concepts of both narrative therapy and ACT. With these foundations for the exchange of ideas, this article explores the core difficulty of this dialogue—the differences between mechanistic, formist, organicist, and contextualist epistemologies, the differences between deductive, anti-theoretical, inductive, and abductive approaches to theory, and the practical implications of these differences. In doing so it suggests how narrative therapy and ACT practitioners might learn from each other without sacrificing core ethical commitments.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".