MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205452892 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v8n1p11

Mindfulness Therapies and Assessment Scales: A Brief Review

2015· review· en· W2205452892 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Håkan Nilsson, Ali Kazemi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessRealmPsychologyPsychotherapistIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Over the past 20 years or so, the uptake of mindfulness within psychology, neuroscience and medicine has been celebrated as a new exciting development. It is within the realm of an assessment and therapeutic framework that mindfulness training has proved itself effective in terms of bettering the lot of many individuals. The primary purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review but also to undertake a more critical examination of the most common and popular forms of Western mindfulness intervention methods and the various scales that have been devised to measure their success in this regard.</p>

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207