Flow theory: Advancing the two-dimensional conceptualization
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
Abstract This research advances the conceptualization and measurement of flow. The results of six studies ( N = 2809) reveal that flow has two dimensions: “fluency,” which is comprised of experiences related to fluent thought and action; and “absorption,” which is based on sustained full attention. The results also demonstrate that the two dimensions have nuanced relationships with other variables. Specifically, while the fluency dimension is related to antecedents of flow (familiarity, skill, progress), the absorption dimension is not. Conversely, the absorption dimension was found to be strongly related to consequences of flow (behavioral intentions, presence), while the fluency dimension was not. Furthermore, we demonstrate that fluency-related experiences can give rise to the absorption-related experiences, which advances our understanding of how flow emerges. Finally, we develop a refined measure of flow called the two-dimensional-flow scale, and demonstrate its enhanced ability to capture variance in flow and other related variables in leisure contexts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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