MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104804417 · doi:10.1080/00207140008410360

Italian norms for the harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, form a

2000· article· en· W2104804417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vilfredo De Pascalis, Paolo Maria Russo, Francesco S. Marucci

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypnotic susceptibilityNormativePsychologyDanishGermanContext (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)PsychometricsScale (ratio)Sample (material)Clinical psychologyHypnosisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Norms for an Italian translation of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) by Shor and Orne (1962) are presented. Subjects recruited from 1986 to 1989 were pooled, resulting in a sample of 376 participants (297 women and 79 men). The normative data were generally congruent with earlier normative studies in score distribution, item difficulty levels, and reliability. Women had significantly higher hypnotizability scores and item pass rates than men. The reliability scores of the Italian adaptation of the HGSHS:A were the same as a previously reported Danish sample and higher than a German sample, but lower than those of the Australian, Canadian, and original American samples. These results suggest that the Italian version of the HGSHS:A is an efficient tool for initial hypnotizability screening in an Italian context.

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)0.016
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations65
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental HypnosisSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207