Surprise and delight: Response to informal versus formal mindfulness among university students with self-injury.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 36) completed a semistructured interview following a brief mindfulness practice (i.e., either a formal body scan, formal sitting meditation, or informal practice). Reflexive thematic analysis of interview transcripts revealed five key themes. First, there appeared to be general misconceptions regarding what constitutes mindfulness practice (Theme 1). Nevertheless, within the present study, all mindfulness practices were carried out with relative ease (Theme 2). Notably, favorable physical and psychological experiences were predominant in response to informal practice (Theme 3). Preferences regarding level of guidance were more mixed in response to formal versus informal practice (Theme 4). Finally, only informal practice inspired feelings of delight and surprise following practice (Theme 5). Informal mindfulness practice is deemed highly acceptable by university students with a history of NSSI and clinicians should strongly consider emphasizing it in mindfulness-based interventions offered to these students, to provide them with the best opportunity to build a regular mindfulness practice and develop their emotion regulation abilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it