MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088204052 · doi:10.2190/ic.28.2.e

Responding to Self-Consciousness: An Examination of Everyday and Dream Episodes

2008· article· en· W2088204052 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ephrem G. Pano, Michelle C. Hilscher, Gerald C. Cupchik

Bibliographic record

VenueImagination Cognition and Personality · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamPsychologyEveryday lifeConsciousnessSelf-consciousnessCoping (psychology)Social anxietyNarrativeArousalSelfAnxietyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eighty-nine students from the University of Toronto completed a 20-item self-consciousness questionnaire. They also provided a written account of a self-conscious (e.g., embarrassing) episode from everyday life as well as a self-conscious episode from a dream. Factor analysis of the questionnaire responses revealed 6 factors, with public and private self-consciousness emerging as the dominant factors. The everyday and dream episodes were examined qualitatively and 8 categories were derived the frequency of which could be numerically assessed in each protocol and factor analyzed. For the everyday life episodes, 5 factors revealed concerns of undergraduates related to academic performance versus physical appearance, social anxiety, and athletic performance, as well as 2 coping strategies. Three factors emerged from the dream episodes with the first revealing how students imagined coping with negative bodily arousal in order to assert themselves in academic situations. The second factor showed how students imagined withdrawing from social situations so as to avoid negative emotions associated with self-consciousness related to appearance. Meaningful correlations were found relating factors from the everyday episodes with the self-consciousness questionnaire as well as the dream episodes. These findings demonstrate complementary relations between quantitative and qualitative (i.e., narrative-based) assessments of self-consciousness.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImagination Cognition and PersonalitySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207