Metaphors of mindfulness in pediatric occupational therapy practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Metaphors are commonly used linguistic devices that can encourage deep reflection and offer new insight. Metaphors have been used within the both the occupational therapy and mindfulness literature to describe complex phenomena. The aim of this phenomenological study was to identify, analyze, and interpret metaphors used by pediatric occupational therapists to describe mindfulness in their clinical practices with children and youth. Method: Eight North American Occupational Therapists participated in semi-structured interviews which were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were read to identify idiographic or naturally occurring metaphors used by participants. Metaphors of mindfulness were also elicited from participants as an interview question. Findings: Three themes were identified within participants' idiographic metaphors of mindfulness: mindfulness as a tool, mindfulness as exploration, and mindfulness as a support. Two additional themes were identified within participants' idiographic metaphors of themselves as facilitators of mindfulness: therapist as a guide, and therapist as a gardener. Elicited metaphors generally aligned with the themes identified for idiographic metaphors while some offered additional unique insights. Conclusion: The findings open conversations about therapists' framing of the use of mindfulness within the context of pediatric occupational therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".