MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973826272 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20395

An initial evaluation of a mindful parenting program

2007· article· en· W1973826272 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth M. Altmaier, Raelynn Maloney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMindfulnessDevelopmental psychologyIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)Interpersonal communicationParent trainingClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of children are experiencing marital transition. The effects of divorce on children have typically been considered deleterious, although factors can buffer the difficulty of postdivorce adjustment. One of these factors is a positive relationship with a parental figure. Unfortunately, divorce often overwhelms parents with a series of changes that compromise their parenting skills. One new approach to improving parenting after divorce is mindful parenting, which aims to enhance interpersonal and emotional connection in the parent-child relationship. This program is intended to facilitate parents' self-awareness, their mindfulness, and their intentionality in responding to their child's needs. The present study reports on the implementation of the Mindful Parenting Program, delivered in two groups to 12 recently divorced parents with preschool-aged children. Program effectiveness was conducted on two levels. First, mindfulness measured by the Toronto Mindfulness Scale revealed significant increases over the intervention and posttest period. Second, in-home behavioral observations conducted pre- and postintervention revealed no changes in parent-child relationships. These findings are discussed within the larger context of facilitating effective parenting postdivorce.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.379
GPT teacher head0.704
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207