Lovely by the Water- Reflections on the Pleasures and Benefits of Doing Qigong in Natural Surroundings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qigong and Nature are intertwined. The image of water is omnipresent in Taoist philosophy as Taoist sages believe we are always immersed in Tao that our lives are spent in this moving river of life. Images of trees usually willows situated near water their branches moving in the gentle breeze permeate the ancient texts which guide Qigong practice. While there has been considerable research recently on Green and Blue Spaces on exercise in general however, there has been very little modern research on the health or any other benefits of practicing Qigong outside in natural surroundings. This article offers a commentary on the experience and perceived benefits of practicing Qigong in natural surroundings. It presents 20 years of teaching Qigong classes in Natural surroundings through the eyes of my students and of Qigong colleagues around the world and places these in the context of academic research. It concludes that the ancient Taoist and Buddhist master’s perceptions written many years ago are correct. The quality of the experience health benefits, and the energy accrued from Qigong is enhanced by practice in nature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".