MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278453479 · doi:10.1177/1073191115609996

A Short Boredom Proneness Scale

2015· article· en· W2278453479 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

VenueAssessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomPsychologyScale (ratio)Artifact (error)Construct validityInternal consistencyRating scalePsychometricsItem analysisTraitClinical psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been evident for some time that the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS), a commonly used measure of trait boredom, does not constitute a single scale. Factor analytic studies have identified anything from two to seven factors, prompting Vodanovich and colleagues to propose an alternative two factor, short form version Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SR). The present study further investigates the factor structure and validity of both the BPS and the BPS-SR. The two-factor solution obtained for the BPS-SR appears to be an artifact of item wording of reverse-scored items. These same items may also have contributed to the earlier complexity and inconsistency of results for the full BPS. An eight-item scale of only consistently worded items (i.e., those not requiring reverse scoring) was developed. This new scale demonstrated unidimensionality and the scale score had good internal consistency and construct validity comparable to the original BPS score.

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 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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.256 · 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