MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064702202 · doi:10.2466/pr0.2001.88.1.89

Geophysical Variables and Behavior: XC. What People Consider Strange: Change in Proportions of Reports of Fortean Phenomena over Time

2001· article· en· W2064702202 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttributionPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Natural (archaeology)Social psychologyHistoryCommunicationArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proportions of 3,667 reports classified as unusual or odd events within eight major categories for four contiguous blocks of time between 1770 and 1970 were compared for disconcordance. The major source of the disconcordance (phi = .52) of reports between the major categories and time was due to the decrease in the numbers of reports of falls of ice, rocks, and animals but increased numbers of reports of odd luminosities, labelled as unidentified flying objects, after the mid 1930s. One hypothesis to explain this result is that cultural changes in attributions for causes of natural phenomena may affect their designation as strange rather than mundane.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0210.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicCategorization, perception, and languageFrench-language works237,207