MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mindfulness at Work

2017· reference-entry· en· W2793407677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Kay, Theodore C. Masters-Waage, Daniel P. Skarlicki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessMeditationMainstreamPsychologyPsychotherapistPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in mindfulness has grown rapidly in recent years. For the period 1986–1996 the number of hits for “mindfulness” in Google Scholar was 4,390. From 1997 to 2007 that number increased eight-fold to 35,300, and from 2008 to 2018 it increased by a factor of 35 to 155,000. In 2010, a peer-reviewed academic journal Mindfulness emerged devoted exclusively to the advancement of mindfulness theory, research, and clinical practice. Between 2014 and 2019 numerous handbooks on various aspects of mindfulness were published, and in October 2015 American Psychologist published a special issue on the topic. Neuroscientific evidence on the benefits of mindfulness meditation is rapidly growing as well, as canvassed by Gotink, et al. 2016 and Tang, et al. 2015. This increase in scholarly attention has been mirrored by a growing interest in mindfulness in society at large. Since the 1980s, the Western world has seen meditation and yoga rise from almost obscurity to a regular part of everyday life for many people, with the number of Americans who engage in such practices in 2012 estimated to be 9.5 percent. Mindfulness training has spread to the business world and is being offered by an increasingly wide array of Fortune 500 companies including Apple, Google, and General Motors, to name a few. In 2014 Time Magazine featured as its cover story the “Mindful Revolution.” Mindfulness has hit the mainstream. The purpose of this article is to review the key issues and findings in mindfulness research to date, with an emphasis on how it relates to management, organizational behavior, and industrial-organizational psychology. To place the discussion in context, we begin by reviewing definitions of mindfulness, as well as canvassing the historical context from which it has emerged. We then summarize some of the key findings of mindfulness research to date, organized by topic category. In the second half of the chapter, we review the rapidly expanding literature on mindfulness in the workplace, offer theoretical reasons in support of the findings, and highlight potential avenues of future research. We close with what we see as important research issues facing mindfulness scholars. Support for this article was received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant to the third author.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.219 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMind wandering and attentionFrench-language works237,207