MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148542839 · doi:10.1002/jclp.20212

Dream content and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study of the continuity hypothesis

2005· article· en· W2148542839 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Pesant, Antonio Zadra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamPsychologyContent (measure theory)Social psychologyLongitudinal studyAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyStatisticsPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This longitudinal study tested the continuity hypothesis, which postulates that waking states and concerns are reflected in dreams. The relationship between dream content and negative waking affect was investigated both at fixed points in time and over a 6- to 10-year period. Twenty-eight participants completed measures of psychological well-being (PWB) and kept a dream log at two periods of their lives. Correlational analyses showed that the lower the participants' self-reported levels of PWB, the more their dreams tended to contain aggressive as opposed to friendly interactions, negative emotions as opposed to positive ones, and, to lesser extent, failures and misfortunes as opposed to successes and good fortunes. Similarly, PWB was significantly related to dream content over time. These findings are consistent with the continuity hypothesis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.533
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.006 · 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

Citations92
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207