MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973184433 · doi:10.2190/em.26.1.d

Relationship of Personal Cognitive Schemas to the Labeling of a Profound Emotional Experience as Religious-Mystical or Aesthetic

2008· article· en· W1973184433 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmpirical Studies of the Arts · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMysticismPsychologySchema (genetic algorithms)CognitionReligious experienceSocial psychologyAestheticsEpistemologyArtLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjective experiences of profound religious-mystical and aesthetic experiences share common characteristics, suggesting that apparent differences between them may reflect a person's individual cognitive schema. Six characteristics common to descriptions of religious-mystical and aesthetic experiences were distinguished. A questionnaire was designed to determine the following: 1) the extent to which participants were religiously oriented, and engaged with art; 2) if participants had experienced a profound religious-mystical and a profound aesthetic experience, and 3) had experienced events with six characteristics common to descriptions of profound aesthetic and religious-mystical experiences. Of 487 respondents, 391 met the criteria for having had a profound experience. A significant relationship was found between individuals' personal cognitive schema (religious or artistic) and their labeling of similar profound experiences.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.265
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.157 · 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