The Effectiveness of Mindfulness Group Training on Psychological Well-being, Alexithymia and Marital Burnout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the current research is to determine the effectiveness of mindfulness group training on psychological well-being, alexithymia and marital burnout. The current research is a quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test type with a control group. The population of the present study includes married women of Rodsar city in 2022. From this population, 30 persons were selected by purposive sampling and were randomly divided into two experimental and control groups. The experimental group received 8 sessions of two-hour mindfulness group training and the control group did not receive any training. Psychological well-being scale (PWB), couple burnout measure (CBM) and Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS) were used to collect research data. To analyze the data, covariance analysis test were used. The results of the research showed that mindfulness group training is effective in increasing the psychological well-being and reducing marital burnout and alexithymia of married women (p<0.01). Therefore, the results of the present study are useful for families to use this intervention to improve psychological well-being, alexithymia and marital burnout
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".