A strong relationality view of mindfulness and flourishing I–Thou relations: A dyadic analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 514 heterosexual couples) from couples in the U.S. and Canada. In Study 1, we evaluated a model with male and female mindfulness predicting couple relational-connectivity (a sense of friendship, intimacy, and belonging) through couple responsible actions (behaviors intentionally enacted to strengthen couple connection), which indicated a fully mediated effect; the influence of male and female mindfulness on couple relational-connectivity was fully accounted for by associations with couple responsible actions (indirect standardized betas of .08). With a subsample of 120 of these couples, in Study 2 we used a daily diary design to explore how mindfulness was associated with ethical responsiveness (a tendency to respond benevolently to a perceived need), responsible actions, and relational-connectivity at the within-person level. Study 1 results were reinforced, showing stronger associations in these within-person analyses (indirect standardized betas of .21 and .23). In conceptualizing individual mindfulness and ethical responsiveness as dimensions of a more relational form of mindfulness, one way by which mindfulness may influence couples' relational-connectivity is through its influence on responsible actions. These results provide initial support for using a strongly relational paradigm to understand the role of mindfulness in intimate couple relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".