Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study of mindfulness proceeds from a number of perspectives. Two of the best-known academic conceptualizations of mindfulness are those identified with Kabat-Zinn and Langer. These conceptions, meditative and socio-cognitive, have been built from different foundations and have been argued to be quite distinct. However, Hart, Ivtzan and Hart 1 suggested that self-regulation of attention is a mediator between the two. To put this hypothesis to a test, a convenience sample of participants (n = 208) were asked to complete the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS), and the Self-Regulation Scale (SRS), a measure of the self-regulation of attention. These three dispositional measures were shown to be correlated. Self-regulation passes a statistical test for partial mediation of the relationship between the two measures of mindfulness. This suggests that reliance on the capacity to regulate attention in pursuit of a goal is shared by these two approaches to mindfulness. However, there is no clear conceptual basis for mediation in either particular direction. Further, the correlation between the LMS and FFMQ is highest for those with the highest SRS scores; we discuss the implications for conceptual distinctions within mindfulness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".