The Continuity versus Discontinuity Hypotheses: A Consideration of Issues for Coding Video Game Incorporation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the discussion between Hobson and Shredl the history of our program of research for coding dreams of video game players both after playing a game and without such consideration was reviewed. While many of our studies are about response style in dreams resulting from game play, we also have considered incorporation issues. Some of our previous results seemed to favour the continuity hypothesis others favoured the discontinuity perspective. Two approaches to coding gamers’ dreams were considered and critiqued. Some of these problems were then taken up in a compilation of data from three previous research studies where games were played the day before a dream and dream information was gathered. The 182 dreams were categorized into three groups, no game incorporation, partial game incorporation, and full game incorporation (i.e., the dream is the game). Individual difference and game content variables were unrelated to incorporation into subsequent dreams. However, this classification of dreams did result in various content differences.
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 | 0.258 | 0.434 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".