MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066813875 · doi:10.1177/1073191111421303

Development and Validation of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale

2011· article· en· W2066813875 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley A. Fahlman, Kimberley B. Mercer-Lynn, David B. Flora, John D. Eastwood

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisDisengagement theoryAngerAnxietyExploratory factor analysisNeuroticismMoodPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyStructural equation modelingPersonalitySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the development and validation of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS)-the first and only full-scale measure of state boredom. It was developed based on a theoretically and empirically grounded definition of boredom. A five-factor structure of the scale (Disengagement, High Arousal, Low Arousal, Inattention, and Time Perception) was supported by exploratory factor analyses and confirmatory factor analyses of two independent samples. Furthermore, all subscales were significantly related to a single, second-order factor. The MSBS factor structure was shown to be invariant across gender. MSBS scores were significantly correlated with measures of trait boredom, depression, anxiety, anger, inattention, impulsivity, neuroticism, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Finally, MSBS scores distinguished between participants who were experimentally manipulated into a state of boredom and those who were not, above and beyond measures of trait boredom, negative affect, and depression.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations505
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicMind wandering and attentionFrench-language works237,207