MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319446422 · doi:10.1177/1073191111408229

The Measurement of Boredom

2011· article· en· W2319446422 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 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomPsychologyImpulsivityExperiential avoidanceNeuroticismDysphoriaClinical psychologyAnxietyPersonalityDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two commonly used measures of boredom: the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS) and the Boredom Susceptibility Scale (ZBS). Although both were designed to measure the propensity to experience boredom (i.e., trait boredom), there are reasons to think they may not measure the same construct. The present research sought to evaluate this proposition in several stages. Specifically, relationships between the BPS, ZBS, and important causal (Study 1, N = 837), correlational (Study 2, N = 233), and outcome variables (Study 3, N = 137) were examined in university students. Taken together, results support the notion that the BPS and ZBS do not measure the same construct. Specifically, higher BPS scores were associated with higher levels of neuroticism, experiential avoidance, attentional and nonplanning impulsivity, anxiety, depression, dysphoria, and emotional eating. Conversely, higher ZBS scores were associated with higher levels of motor impulsivity, sensitivity to reward, gambling, and alcohol use and lower levels of neuroticism, experiential avoidance, and sensitivity to punishment.

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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.164 · 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