MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365460070 · doi:10.1007/s12671-023-02113-8

A Framework for the Empirical Investigation of Mindfulness Meditative Development

2023· article· en· W4365460070 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMindfulness · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCenter for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreAd Astra Chandaria FoundationSoftware AG – StiftungBrain and Behavior Research FoundationRappaport FoundationFundação BialUniversity of MelbourneNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMindfulnessMeditationPsychologyPsychotherapistExperiential learningHarmContemplationClinical psychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Millions of people globally have learned mindfulness meditation with the goal of improving health and well-being outcomes in both clinical and non-clinical contexts. An estimated half of these practitioners follow mindfulness teachers’ recommendations to continue regular meditation after completion of initial instruction, but it is unclear whether benefits are strengthened by regular practice and whether harm can occur. Increasing evidence shows a wide range of experiences that can arise with regular mindfulness meditation, from profoundly positive to challenging and potentially harmful. Initial research suggests that complex interactions and temporal sequences may explain these experiential phenomena and their relations to health and well-being. We believe further study of the effects of mindfulness meditation is urgently needed to better understand the benefits and challenges of continued practice after initial instructions. Effects may vary systematically over time due to factors such as initial dosage, accumulation of ongoing practice, developing skill of the meditator, and complex interactions with the subjects’ past experiences and present environment. We propose that framing mindfulness meditation experiences and any associated health and well-being benefits within integrated longitudinal models may be more illuminating than treating them as discrete, unrelated events. We call for ontologically agnostic, collaborative, and interdisciplinary research to study the effects of continued mindfulness meditation and their contexts, advancing the view that practical information found within religious and spiritual contemplative traditions can serve to develop initial theories and scientifically falsifiable hypotheses. Such investigation could inform safer and more effective applications of mindfulness meditation training for improving health and well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it