Does playing O.zen improve our well-being?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress is considered to be an individual’s response to different pressures and demands in a particular environment (Pottier et al., 2011). In an ever more demanding and stressful world, many options for people to learn how to relax and how to deal with a challenging lifestyle are becoming available. O.zen is a great alternative, since it is a ludic and not expensive device, which goal is to help people to relax with the help of breathing games that can easily be accomplished no matter what time of the day or context. The goal of this study was to test O.zen’s efficiency. In order to do so, neuropsychological tests were held throughout the experiment to 28 participants that were divided in experimental (played O.zen) and control (watched videos equivalent to O.zen) groups. Also, cortisol levels and participants’ skin conductance was measured. Both groups showed overall improvements, with participants feeling significantly less anxious after playing O.zen, and showing a lower level of skin conductance. O.zen’s visuals and music seem to be beneficial on their own, with its biofeedback quality emphasizing the gains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".