MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273123601 · doi:10.11588/ijodr.2010.2.514

Exploring the Dreams of Women with Breast Cancer: Content and Meaning of Dreams

2010· article· en· W2273123601 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa L. DeCicco, Tallulah Lyons, Wendy Pannier, Christopher Wright, Jessica Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueheiDOK (Heidelberg University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamBreast cancerMeaning (existential)PsychologyInterpretation (philosophy)Mental imagePsychoanalysisPsychotherapistSocial psychologyCancerMedicinePsychiatryLinguisticsInternal medicineCognitionPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueheiDOK (Heidelberg University)Same topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207