An experimental test of the mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Casual pathways between decentering, reappraisal, and well-being.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 131) employed a four-arm randomized trial design, featuring (a) control, (b) mindfulness, (c) stress mindset, and (d) blended mindfulness and stress mindset training conditions. The MMT pathway accounted for change in well-being across all models, mindfulness training consistently promoted positive reappraisal despite an absence of reappraisal instructions, and an exploratory cross-lagged analysis found decentering facilitative of subsequent reappraisal. However, the stress mindset intervention failed to improve well-being relative to control, limiting capacity for causal inference; post hoc analyses, therefore, focused on the more efficacious mindfulness training conditions. The MMT accounted for change in well-being across all levels of analysis, although well-being changes were also supported by direct effects of mindfulness training and decentering, with only partial mediation through the complete MMT pathway. These findings support MMT as a process model for well-being but suggest that decentering and reappraisal only partially account for the salutary effects of well-being interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".