Embodied Mindfulness Questionnaire: Scale Development and Validation
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
Recently developed mindfulness scales have integrated aspects of the body in measuring mindfulness unlike other established scales. However, these scales focused solely on body awareness and did not embrace all aspects of mindfulness and the body. Specifically, they did not integrate embodiment in mindfulness. The proposed Embodied Mindfulness Questionnaire (EMQ) aims to operationalize the proposed notion of "embodied mindfulness" by grounding it into five dimensions, each representing a set of skills that can be cultivated through training and practice: (a) Detachment from Automatic Thinking, (b) Attention and Awareness of Feelings and Bodily Sensations, (c) Connection with the Body, (d) Awareness of the Mind-Body Connection, and (e) Acceptance of Feelings and Bodily Sensations. The EMQ items were developed through consultations with a panel of eight graduate students and a group of 10 experts in the field. Results from a series of three studies supported the proposed five subscales of EMQ and suggested that these subscales are independent and supported by convergent and discriminant evidence. In addition, results suggested that scores of EMQ subscales are different in terms of sensitivity to mindfulness training or meditation practice and experience. Limitations, as well as theoretical and practical implications of the EMQ subscales, are thoroughly discussed.
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) | 0.008 | 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