MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989529300 · doi:10.1521/jscp.2011.30.6.647

Boredom: An Emotional Experience Distinct from Apathy, Anhedonia, or Depression

2011· article· en· W1989529300 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

VenueJournal of Social and Clinical Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomApathyAnhedoniaPsychologyConstruct (python library)Depression (economics)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryCognitionPleasure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boredom is a universal human experience which has received little empirical attention. Researchers have yet to agree on a unified definition of boredom and many see it as a secondary symptom to other psychological states (e.g., apathy depression). We explored the relationship between boredom and three phenomenologically related states; apathy, anhedonia and depression. Structural equation modeling revealed that although related to each state to varying degrees, boredom is empirically distinct. Establishing boredom as an independent construct provides an important step in bringing the field closer to a universally accepted definition of the experience, which will ultimately facilitate more effective assessment and treatment of boredom.

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)0.000
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 score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.363
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.123 · 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