MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984723373 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2003.01.0059

Psychological correlates of illusory body experiences

2003· article· en· W1984723373 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

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIllusionPhantom limbSensationPsychological interventionAmputationClinical psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postamputation phantom sensations and phantom pain, i.e., sensation or pain in the amputated limb, can be extremely distressing for people who have had amputations. Recent research on treating phantom phenomena has used the experimental induction of illusory body experiences. Although the suggestion has been that such experiences may influence the cortical remapping that occurs after amputation, the role of psychological factors in these experimental inductions has not been addressed. We used an able-bodied sample to investigate whether a common underlying propensity exists for illusory body experiences and whether the occurrence of these experiences is associated with previously neglected psychological variables. Psychometric measures of body plasticity, somatic preoccupation, and creative imagination were significantly and differentially associated with the occurrence of illusory body experiences. Hence, these measures have potential use in identifying patients most likely to benefit from treatment interventions using the induction of illusory body 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.330 · 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