A Framework for the Empirical Investigation of Mindfulness Meditative Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.078 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".