Mindfulness and Its Intersection With Social Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace accounts of poor management, employee burnout, and inequity have been consistent elements of work life leading to countless media reports of workplace toxicity where a lack of trust and overabundance of conflict have become the norm. The studies in this symposium continue to advance knowledge by documenting how mindfulness intersects common challenges in the social realm. These include managing the intricate process of feedback and communication, supportive leadership behaviors that enable employee resilience, deepening the understanding between telecommuting and well-being, and enriching our understanding of minoritized experiences. These studies add to knowledge on mindfulness by examining understudied areas and voices and offer new theoretical insights and practical implications. Trait Mindfulness Buffers Responses to Negative Feedback Author: Christopher James Lyddy; Providence College Author: Darren Jason Good; Pepperdine U. Author: Tiffany Kriz; MacEwan U. Fear of Negative Evaluation Mediates the Positive Effect of Mindfulness on Feedback-Seeking Behavior Author: Eva Peters; Singapore Management U. Author: Jochen Matthias Reb; Singapore Management U. Author: Samantha Su-Hsien Sim; NOVA School of Business and Economics Creating Positive Relationships at Work: The Role of Leader Mindful Communication Author: Wu Wei; Wuhan U. Author: Xia Liu; Wuhan U. Author: Alisha Gupta; Virginia Commonwealth U. Author: Chris Reina; Virginia Commonwealth U. A Mindful Attention Regulation Perspective on The Role of Telecommuting For Employee Well-being Author: Ute Regina Hulsheger; Maastricht U. Author: Annika Nübold; Maastricht U. Author: Darta Vasiljeva; Maastricht U. The Enlightenment Bias: Why Mindfulness May Not Be A Practice for Everyone Author: Ellen Choi; Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan U.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".