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
OBJECTIVE: Although earlier work has shown a link between mind-wandering and ADHD symptoms, this relationship has not been further investigated by taking into account recent advances in mind-wandering research. METHOD: The present study provides a comprehensive assessment of the relationship between mind-wandering and ADHD symptomatology in an adult community sample ( N = 105, 71 females, M age = 23.1) using laboratory measures and experience sampling during daily life. RESULTS: Mind-wandering and detrimental mind-wandering were positively associated with ADHD symptoms. Meta-awareness of mind-wandering mediated the relationship between ADHD symptomatology and detrimental mind-wandering, suggesting that some of the negative consequences can be ameliorated by strategies that facilitate meta-awareness. Interestingly, participants with low ADHD scores showed a positive relationship between detrimental mind-wandering and useful mind-wandering; however, participants with high ADHD scores failed to engage in this type of "strategic" mind-wandering. CONCLUSION: These results provide new insights into the relationship between ADHD symptomatology and mind-wandering that could have important clinical implications.
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 | 0.000 | 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