Hypnosis scales for the twenty-first century: what do we need and how should we use them?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are several possible strategies for documenting the stable individual differences in processing the history of hypnosis. However, an approach characteristic of science is to devise a scale that assigns different numbers to the varying manifestations of the phenomenon under study. This article declares that the first such hypnosis scale was developed in the late 1800s by Bernheim (1886/1964) and Liébeault (1889). Since then, there have been several developments in that direction. However, as this article explains, it was the scale construction work of Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard in the late 1950s that completely transformed the scientific study of hypnosis. Modifying the hypnosis scale of Friedlander and Sarbin (1938), they introduced a simplified pass/fail scoring scheme for the response to each test suggestion, and they added additional relatively easy test suggestions, yielding two alternate forms: the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms A and B (SHSS: A and SHSS: B; Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard, 1959).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".