Using a Personal-Disclosure Mutual-Sharing Approach to Deliver a Team-Based Mindfulness Meditation Program to Enhance Cohesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to increase perceptions of cohesion among intercollegiate soccer players, a team-based mindfulness meditation program was undertaken. This team-building program was delivered by using a personal-disclosure mutual-sharing approach. A total of 31 female intercollegiate soccer players from two teams participated. Assigned to the intervention condition was a Canadian intercollegiate team (U Sports), while the control condition was an American intercollegiate team (NCAA, Division II). The participants completed a measure of cohesion (Group Environment Questionnaire) pre- and postintervention. Controlling for the preintervention scores, the 8-week team-based mindfulness meditation program resulted in significantly higher perceptions of social cohesion for the intervention group compared with the control group at postintervention. However, there were no significant differences in task cohesion between the intervention and control groups at postintervention. Using personal disclosure, mutual sharing seems a viable approach by which to deliver a team-based mindfulness meditation program to enhance a team’s social cohesion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".