Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burnout, a negative job-related psychological state particularly associated with the health professions, equates to a loss of valuable research in healthcare researchers. Team mindfulness, recognized to enhance personal fulfilment through work engagement, represents one important aspect found effective in reducing burnout. In a specific series of diverse membership academic meetings intended to reduce research burnout—employing writing prompts, doodling and continuous developmental feedback to do so—team mindfulness was demonstrated when conducted in person. Therefore, determining if team mindfulness is evident when holding such academic meetings online is relevant. When COVID-19 limitations required moving these academic meetings online, it was previously noted and reported that team mindfulness was affected in no longer being present during the first eighteen months of restrictions. To discover if this result persisted, question asking, doodles submitted and feedback responses were analyzed of the following year’s academic meetings for the same group, both quantitively and qualitatively. In finding the team mindfulness of these meetings additionally compromised the second full year, online practices actually found successful at creating and supporting team mindfulness—online games—are identified and considered. Concluding implications are noted and recommendations made regarding team mindfulness in reducing burnout for future online academic meetings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".