MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944887134 · doi:10.1177/0145445519850744

Decentering in Mindfulness and Cognitive Restructuring for Social Anxiety: An Experimental Study of a Potential Common Mechanism

2019· article· en· W2944887134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah A. Hayes‐Skelton, Carol S. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavior Modification · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsMindfulnessAnxietyPsychologyCognitive restructuringClinical psychologySocial anxietyCognitive reappraisalCognitionPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined whether cognitive restructuring (CR) or mindfulness led to increases in decentering and whether changes in decentering were related to changes in anxiety and willingness to approach anxiety-provoking situations. Forty-six individuals with social anxiety completed speaking tasks before and after receiving CR, mindfulness, or control instructions. Overall, anxiety decreased and willingness increased from the first to second speech, with no differences across conditions. Decentering (measured by the Toronto Mindfulness Scale [TMS]) increased, with those in the mindfulness condition reporting more decentering. There was a nonsignificant, medium-sized effect on decentering, as measured by the Experiences Questionnaire (EQ)-Decentering factor, with those in CR reporting more decentering. Increases in decentering were associated with changes in self-reported anxiety and willingness. Findings indicate that mindfulness and CR led to changes in decentering, and that changes in decentering were related to changes in some, but not all, measures of anxiety.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavior ModificationSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207