MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528575289

Mindfulness-Based Safety: Increasing Attention to Task in Alberta’s Oil and Gas Drilling and Completions Operations

2016· article· en· W2528575289 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Darrah Elizabeth Mae Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)DrillingPetroleum engineeringMindfulnessFossil fuelPsychologyEngineeringWaste managementPsychotherapistMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With studies demonstrating mind-wandering to be associated with failure to perform monitoring procedural steps, a deficiency in being able to call information to mind, more false alarms, and a reduction in task performance, we cannot afford to continue to overlook the potential impact mind-wandering has on human behavior in high-risk environments within the Alberta oil and gas industry. This paper gives consideration to mindfulness-based interventions, a domain of positive psychology, for reducing the occurrence of mind-wandering and improving attention to a task. It is from a foundation of research explored in the literature reviews of mind-wandering and mindfulness, that I invite the oil and gas industry to incorporate the supplemental element of, what I am terming, Mindfulness-Based Safety into their Health & Safety Management Systems. In support of this, I provide a suggested plan for creating awareness and implementing mindfulness into operations to reduce mind-wandering and therefore increase the amount of time employees spend with their minds on task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania)Same topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207