Relationships between Self-Talk, Inner Speech, Mind Wandering, Mindfulness, Self-Concept Clarity, and Self-Regulation in University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 227), we found a small positive association between inner speech use and mind wandering, as well as a medium positive association of mindfulness with self-regulation, in accordance with claims made in the literature. We found a medium positive relationship between mindfulness awareness and inner speech responses, potentially because mindfulness awareness represents an active state of self-focus, requiring verbal self-directed probes. Conversely, the correlations between reports of inner speech use and mindfulness acceptance were medium and negatively associated, perhaps because self-acceptance is a less active process that does not require as much self-directed speech as acquiring self-awareness, or perhaps self-acceptance consists of silencing the mind. Furthermore, the mindfulness-acceptance responses were negatively associated with mind wandering but positively correlated with self-concept clarity and self-regulation (all significant and of medium strength). Another noteworthy result was that mind wandering was negatively correlated with self-concept clarity and self-regulation, in accordance with the view that mind wandering represents a self-escape mechanism and thus impedes the transparency of one's self-view and efforts at controlling oneself. This study pieces together what has been presented in the literature, examining variables that are typically studied in isolation. Further, these results have implications for the future study of self-regulation in that self-focused attention, self-acceptance, and self-concept clarity may be mediators on the paths between self-talk or inner speech use and self-regulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".