MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997801013 · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.109.2.273

Nightmares and bad dreams: Their prevalence and relationship to well-being.

2000· article· en· W1997801013 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 Abnormal Psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNightmareDreamPsychologyPsychoanalysisPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study, for the first time, distinguishes between nightmares and bad dreams, measures the frequency of each using dream logs, and separately assesses the relation between nightmares, bad dreams, and well-being. Eighty-nine participants completed 7 measures of well-being and recorded their dreams for 4 consecutive weeks. The dream logs yielded estimated mean annual nightmare and bad-dream frequencies that were significantly (ps < .01) greater than the mean 12-month and 1-month retrospective estimates. Nightmare frequency had more significant correlations than bad-dream frequency with well-being, suggesting that nightmares are a more severe expression of the same basic phenomenon. The findings confirm and extend evidence that nightmares are more prevalent than was previously believed and underscore the need to differentiate nightmares from bad dreams.

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 score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.301 · 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