MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001212010 · doi:10.1023/a:1009407920851

The consistency and continuity hypotheses revisited through the dreams of women at two periods of their lives.

2000· article· en· W2001212010 on OpenAlexaff
Monique Lortie‐Lussier, Lucie Côté, Julie Vachon

Bibliographic record

VenueDreaming · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDreamConsistency (knowledge bases)PsychosocialDevelopmental psychologyPerspective (graphical)Longitudinal studyInternal consistencyRepeated measures designAnalysis of varianceContent (measure theory)Social psychologyStatisticsPsychometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present longitudinal study was to determine the extent of consistency in dream content at two periods of adulthood as well as continuity with the psychosocial development of the dreamers. Twenty-one women kept a dream diary for a few weeks at intervals of 10, 15 or 17 years. ANOVAs for repeated measures were performed on the mean frequencies per dreamer of different dream elements or ratios of these elements. No significant changes were found. Pearson moment correlations yielded high and significant internal consistency for friendly and aggressive interactions. None of the others were significant. Ratios and indices calculated on subclasses of characters, settings, interactions and emotions revealed significant deviations from female norms, at one or the other of the phases. These different findings are discussed within the theoretical perspective of continuity with developmental stages in women's lives.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDreamingSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207