The Process of Valuing and Subjective Well-Being for Trainees
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current qualitative research investigated the process of valuing from an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy perspective, as well as the influence of this process on subjective well-being in novice therapists. Sixteen MA Counseling Psychology students participated in a three-hour workshop that involved didactic and experiential components aimed at facilitating values clarity and values congruent living. A semi-structured interview explored values clarity, behavioral congruence, as well as well-being, including both mood and life satisfaction. Consensual Qualitative Research was used to analyze the interview data. Findings indicated that the values clarification process is complex and challenging, and that structured interventions support this process. Work demands were a particularly salient barrier to valued living for trainees. The valuing process influenced mood more than life satisfaction and was related to eudaimonic, but not hedonic pursuits. Implications for theory, practice, supervision, and future research are provided.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it