Exploring the Utility of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. State boredom – the experience of boredom in the moment – is related to a number of psychosocial issues. Until the recent creation of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS), research was constrained by the lack of a comprehensive, validated measure. However, the MSBS could benefit from further evaluation. To more thoroughly validate the MSBS. In two studies, participants were induced into a state of either boredom or non-boredom, and then completed the MSBS. Discriminant analysis showed that the full MSBS was able to correctly classify 68.1% (Study 2) – 84.1% (Study 1) of participants into their experimental condition. Based on further DA analysis, a subset of eight items (a potential short form) is proposed. Differential item functioning (Study 1) found only one item to which responding differed by gender. Use of the MSBS, including the full scale versus the short form, is discussed. Which experiential components of boredom may be particularly important for classifying bored individuals, and the issue of variability across boredom manipulations, are also considered.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".