MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109015294 · doi:10.1037/a0032455

Video game play as nightmare protection: A replication and extension.

2013· article· en· W2109015294 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDreaming · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNightmarePsychologyVideo gameCasualDreamSocial psychologyTask (project management)Replication (statistics)PsychotherapistMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This inquiry is a replication and extension of a recent study with military gamers examining the thesis that playing video games might act as a type of nightmare protection. This hypothesis is based on the idea of a well-rehearsed defense due to game play, a numbing against violence, and the idea that memories in the 6 hours posttrauma are best interrupted with a visual cognitive task, like video game play. This replication was done using university students who had experienced a trauma in the past and had reported a dream associated with that trauma along with a recent dream. Controls were emotional reactivity and trauma history. We conclude that male high-end gamers seemed to be less troubled by nightmares while female high-end gamers were the most troubled by nightmares. So what differs between these two types of gamers? Three suggestions are considered: game genre, game sociability, and sex-role conflict. It seems that the nightmare protection hypothesis of video game play should be qualified to apply to male high-end gamers who play few casual games, play socially, and do not seem to experience sex-role conflict due to type of game play.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.274 · 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