VALIDATION OF EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY FOR STATE MINDFULNESS INDUCTION IN A CONTROLLED LABORATORY SETTING
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exponential growth of mindfulness' popularity in both experimental and applied fields of psychology has revealed serious gaps in the relevant research methodology and theoretical groundwork which, in turn, has undermined the inferences about the beneficial nature of mindfulness.One of the methodological gaps is a lack of formally validated mindfulness induction procedures.The present research aimed to address this issue by experimentally validating a 5-minute body-centered guided meditation as an effective method of mindfulness induction in a laboratory setting.The induction method was designed by an independent professional yoga and meditation teacher; it was designed to be brief, simple, body-centered, and not affiliated with any specific tradition of mindfulness practice.A four-group randomized-control pretestposttest study design was used in this study.Ninety-nine participants were recruited from the Cleveland State University student body.The Toronto Mindfulness Scale was used for the pretest and posttest assessments of state mindfulness.State mindfulness was measured twice in each group: (1) before and (2) either immediately after or 30 minutes after the induction procedure.The induction method was effective in increasing state mindfulness immediately after the mindfulness induction.The induction effect dissipated, but did not fully disappear, by the 30-minute mark.The control condition (sitting down and attending to one's thoughts and physical sensations) served as a low but stable mindfulness induction.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it