MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979313429 · doi:10.1076/iceh.51.1.66.14066

Romanian Norms for the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A

2003· article· en· W1979313429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irina Holdevici, Daniel David, Guy H. Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanianHypnotic susceptibilityGermanNormativePsychologyDanishSample (material)Reliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)PsychometricsClinical psychologyDemographyHypnosisMedicineLinguisticsGeographySociologyLawCartographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Romanian-language version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) was administered to 340 subjects (218 females and 122 males) recruited from 1998 to 1999 in Romania. Data were collected from three samples of participants to provide greater heterogeneity within the sample. The results from the Romanian version of the HGSHS:A were compared to those from Australian, Canadian, Danish, Finnish, German, Italian, Spanish, and original U.S. samples. The Romanian normative data are consistent with earlier normative studies in score distribution, item difficulty levels, and reliability. The mean score of the Romanian sample did not differ from those in the German and Italian samples but did significantly differ from the remaining samples. The total score reliability (.71) and item reliability of the Romanian sample was also comparable with published reference samples. No differences between women and men were found.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental HypnosisSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207