Mindfulness Receptivity, Dispositional Mindfulness, and Coping Self-Efficacy in University Students with and Without a History of Self-Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a significant mental health concern on university campuses. It has been proposed that dispositional mindfulness, which may be fostered through mindfulness practice, may have important benefits for university students with a history of NSSI through its positive impact on coping self-efficacy. However, students’ receptivity to mindfulness practice may be an important precursor to their ability to incur the benefits of dispositional mindfulness. This study sought to explore the interrelations between NSSI history, mindfulness receptivity, dispositional mindfulness, and coping self-efficacy among a sample of 246 university students (Mage = 21.53 years). Mindfulness receptivity was found to be positively predictive of coping self-efficacy; dispositional mindfulness fully mediated this relationship for participants with a history of NSSI, but did not mediate this relationship for those without such a history. Findings provide preliminary evidence for the importance of mindfulness receptivity in fostering dispositional mindfulness and coping self-efficacy in university students.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".