MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006680699 · doi:10.2182/cjot.2011.78.1.7

Mindfulness and Flow in Occupational Engagement: Presence in Doing

2011· article· en· W2006680699 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFlow Experience in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessOccupational therapyPsychologyOccupational scienceFlow (mathematics)PsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatryMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Flow is a psychological state that might be viewed as desirable, and it occurs when a person is aware of his or her actions but is not being aware of his or her awareness. Mindfulness is viewed not as the achievement of any particular state, but as intentional awareness of what is, being aware of awareness. PURPOSE: To examine theoretical perspectives and empirical research on flow and mindfulness, and offer suggestions about the relevance of these concepts to occupational engagement. KEY ISSUES: Both flow and mindfulness involve being present, actively engaged, and attentive. The experience and practice of flow and mindfulness are relevant to the experience of occupational engagement. IMPLICATIONS: Understanding flow and mindfulness may help occupational therapists improve the therapeutic occupational engagement process with their clients through enhancing depth and meaning of occupational experiences, as well as health and well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.212 · 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