MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W127158828

Automatic Dream Sentiment Analysis

2006· article· it· W127158828 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2006
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamLexiconArtificial intelligenceNormativeSentiment analysisNatural language processingComputer scienceWord (group theory)Class (philosophy)Baseline (sea)PsychologyLinguisticsEpistemologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this position paper, we propose a first step toward automatic analysis of sentiments in dreams. 100 dreams were sampled from a dream bank created for a normative study of dreams. Two human judges assigned a score to describe dream sentiments. We ran four baseline algorithms in an attempt to automate the rating of sentiments in dreams. Particularly, we compared the General Inquirer (GI) tool, the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), a weighted version of the GI lexicon and of the HM lexicon and a standard bag-of-words. We show that machine learning allows automating the human judgment with accuracy superior to majority class choice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207