Exploring the Dreams of Women with Breast Cancer: Content and Meaning of Dreams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the dreams of 34 women, (17 who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and 17 who had not) and the meaning of their dreams via dream interpretation. Results were compared between those with breast cancer and those without. As expected, the women with breast cancer had dream imagery that specifically reflected their waking day experiences in relevant ways. Furthermore, the significant difference between the two groups provides support for the continuity hypothesis of dreaming. The women with breast cancer had significantly more medical figures, torso imagery, pain, disease reference, and death imagery in their dreams. When examining the meaning of the dreams with dream interpretation, the women with breast cancer had meaning pertinent to their waking life such as insight about their disease, medical events and figures, fear, and death. The women without breast cancer interpreted their dream imagery mainly to be about their romantic relationships, future, stress, family, and friends. This research illustrates that dream imagery is specific and relevant for women with and without breast cancer, and furthermore, that they make meaning of their dream imagery in beneficial ways. Implications and future directions are discussed in relation to dream imagery, interpretation of imagery, and breast cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".