Comparing the well-being benefits of engaging in two positive psychology interventions: the Noticing Nature Intervention (NNI) vs Three Good Things (3GT)
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".