MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284975901 · doi:10.11588/ijodr.2015.1.15857

Media use and dream associations between Canadians of differing cultural backgrounds

2015· article· en· W2284975901 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jayne Gackenbach, Sarah Gahr

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library Heidelberg · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamPsychologyNightmareSocial psychologySocial mediaMedia useRecallCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian students of varying cultural backgrounds took an online survey for course credit examining their dream experiences (Dream Intensity Scale, DIS; Yu, 2010) and history of media use, i.e., social media and video game play. Regression analyses onto the data found that the role of sex and culture, relative to history of media use, was strongest with total DIS scores as well as dream recall and nightmare information, which is often reported in the literature. Media use was also a component of these two dimensions but its role in predicting self-reported dream experiences was stronger for the other types of DIS information. In general the findings with media use seem to fall around age the subject began using social media or gaming as well as their use of MySpace, one of the first social media sites and thus presumably longest used. These findings support Lambrecht, Schredl, Henley-Einion, and Blagrove (2013) in terms of the continuity hypothesis of dreaming and high frequency of an activity resulting in more dream incorporation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library HeidelbergSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207