The Significance of Certain Dreams Reported by Psychosomatic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several types of dreams reported by psychosomatic patients with alexithymic characteristics are presented. Two special features of the dreams are noted: (1) the dreams contain events which are very traumatic and (2) the protagonists of the dreams failed to fully perceive their own feelings. It is postulated that the failure of the protagonists to fully perceive their own feelings played an important role in fostering the development of the traumatic events. Feelings such as anxiety and sadness are key signals which incite the ego of the dreamer to set protective operations into motion. The diminution of awareness of these feelings may, therefore, delay the implementation of protective operations to a point which allows the traumatic events to progress dangerously far. It is interesting to note that the few psychosomatic patients without alexithymic characteristics who were included in my series reported a type of dream which was identical to one of the types of dreams reported by patients with alexithymic characteristics. This concurrence suggests the possibility that the dreams form a link between the psychologies of these two sub-groups of psychosomatic patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".