What does (and should) "mind wandering" mean?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of studies examining mind wandering, and research on the topic has spread widely across various domains of psychological research. As research on the topic of mind wandering has accelerated, the defining features of this conscious state have expanded, and researchers have begun to define mind wandering in conceptually and operationally different ways between – and sometimes even within – studies. Yet, despite clear differences in the definitions adopted, ‘mind wandering’ is often discussed in broad terms, and inferences drawn by researchers are rarely constrained to their specific operational definitions. This practice produces a lack of clarity in our understanding of mind wandering, and it can lead to illusory inconsistencies in the literature. To minimize these problems, we propose that researchers adopt a family-resemblances approach to the investigation of mind wandering, which entails (a) treating mind wandering as a heterogeneous construct and (b) more clearly measuring and describing the specific aspects of the variety of mind wandering that researchers are attempting to investigate. To help move the field forward, we delineate a prototypical case of mind wandering in the broader context of related forms of thought, which should guide the use of the term in future research.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".