The role of personality on restoration in a natural environment with a social encounter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing amount of empirical research results suggests that being in a natural environment is beneficial for restoration.The aim of this study is to investigate whether a social encounter during a walk in nature, taken personality traits into consideration, degrades, as proven in earlier research, or supports the process of restoration.The four personality traits that has been considered, are social anxiety, extraversion, neuroticism and openness to experience.The Montreal Imaging Stress Task was used to induce feelings of stress in 82 participants.The process of restoration is measured based on measures of heartrate that assessed participants' reactions at the beginning, during and at the end of the restorative walk and measures of the Panas, positive and negative affect, that assessed participants' reactions before and after the restorative walk.The results demonstrate that only the personality traits social anxiety and extraversion influences the process restoration.The effect of a social encounter during a walk in nature is disadvantageous on the restoration process for people who are social anxious, and is conducive for people who are extravert.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".