Equitable Mindfulness: The practice of mindfulness for all
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
The benefits of mindfulness are well-documented; however, these benefits may not be evenly distributed across communities. Equitable Mindfulness aims to make these benefits accessible to a wider and more inclusive audience. The aim of this study was to investigate the applicability of Equitable Mindfulness and systemic barriers that prevent mindfulness programs from being equitably accessed across communities. Twenty-one participants were recruited for qualitative in-depth interviews during a 2-day mindfulness conference. The constant comparison method was used to iteratively identify and categorize themes that emerged within and across interviews. Five dominant themes emerged from the data as follows: inherent equitability, accessibility, inclusiveness, awareness and knowledge-sharing, and acknowledgement of multiple perspectives. Having an applicable and meaningful term to use when describing mindfulness as an inclusive and equitable practice can facilitate the exploration of a new area of research. There is a need for future initiatives aimed at making mindfulness trainings and programs more equitable and accessible to all, regardless of socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, or abilities/disabilities.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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