MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004404660 · doi:10.1023/a:1021152411010

Ordinary and recurrent dream recall of active, past and non-recurrent dreamers during and after academic stress.

2002· article· en· W2004404660 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Theresa Duke, John Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueDreaming · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsPsychologyDreamRecallPsychoanalysisStress (linguistics)Clinical psychologyPsychotherapistDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of stress in the onset and frequency of recurrent dreams was investigated by comparing dream recall of students undergoing naturalistic stress conditions. Thirty nine students in active, past and non-recurrent dream groups (n = 13) recorded frequency of nights per week involving overall and recurrent dream recall in the week prior to mid-term examinations and in a neutral study week in second semester self-report measures of everyday hassles and uplifts, anxiety and positive and negative affect experienced during these conditions were also collected. Anxiety and negative effect were reported as significantly higher in the pre-examination week. Overall the groups reported dreams on significantly more nights in the pre-examination week than the post examination week. Recurrent dream nights increased during the stress week for the active recurrent dream group but there was no change in recurrent dream recall for the other groups. These findings are consistent with theories that the experience of emotional stress is a critical factor in the onset and persistence of recurrent 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDreamingSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207