Comparing the well-being benefits of engaging in two positive psychology interventions: the Noticing Nature Intervention (NNI) vs Three Good Things (3GT)
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
In this randomized controlled study, participants (N = 520) from two universities in Canada and one in China were assigned to engage daily, for two weeks, in one of three activities: the Noticing Nature Intervention (NNI; notice how everyday nature makes you feel), Three Good Things (3GT), or an active placebo control activity. Post-intervention well-being (i.e. positive affect, meaning in life, transcendent connectedness, and elevation) and compassion were significantly higher and post-intervention ill-being (i.e. depression and anxiety) was significantly lower for the NNI versus controls (ds = 0.24 to 0.55). Compared to 3GT, transcendent connectedness, elevation and compassion were significantly higher for the NNI (ds = 0.41, 0.44, 0.23). The NNI was statistically equivalent to 3GT in boosting positive affect and meaning in life, and statistically non-inferior at lowering anxiety (boundary levels: d = -0.25, 0.25). Consistent with previous studies testing the NNI, benefits were not moderated by time 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.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it