Tracking Distraction
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.017 |
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".