Houses of Worship as Restorative Environments
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
This study of the restorative benefits of visiting a house of worship was based on questionnaire responses by 781 participants. Factor analysis of motivations for visiting yielded five factors, three of which matched those from a previous study (spirituality, beauty, and being away) and two new ones (contemplation and obligation). Factor analysis of activities at a house of worship yielded four factors along a gradient corresponding roughly to degree of organized religious practice: rituals, traditional activities, asking, and nonreligious activities. Spirituality and asking (for help or forgiveness) were the strongest predictors of positive outcomes, whereas nonreligious activities predicted negative outcomes. The results support and extend Attention Restoration Theory. They indicate that a house of worship can provide a compatible setting for satisfying a spirituality motive and for the cognitive activity of asking which can aid in conserving and restoring directed attention as well as fostering meditation and reflection.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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