Does mindfulness facilitate letting be? A longitudinal investigation of nonattachment as a mediator in the association between mindfulness, well‐being, and affect at trait and state levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigated the mediating role of nonattachment in the association between mindfulness and well-being. Study 1, a 2-week ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study with 2446 responses from 69 participants, showed that state mindfulness at time (t) - 1 was not significantly associated with nonattachment at t and (positive and negative) affect at t + 1. However, nonattachment at t significantly mediated the association between state mindfulness at t and (positive and negative) affect at t. Study 2, a 2-month study with three waves of measurement (n = 224), showed that trait mindfulness at baseline could not predict psychological well-being at 2-month follow-up through nonattachment at 1-month follow-up. However, this mediating relationship was significant when all these variables were measured at baseline. People who are mindful at one moment may experience higher nonattachment and better well-being at the same moment; the beneficial effect could not be sustained over time among people who are largely non-meditators.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".