MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320417836 · doi:10.2190/ic.33.4.d

Examining the Storytelling Method of Dream Interpretation with Canadian Soldiers

2014· article· en· W2320417836 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allyson Dale, Teresa L. DeCicco

Bibliographic record

VenueImagination Cognition and Personality · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingDreamInterpretation (philosophy)WorksheetPsychologyContent analysisSocial psychologyNarrativeSociologySocial scienceLiteratureArtPsychotherapistComputer scienceMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study extended previous research on the content of the dreams of Canadian soldiers to the discovery obtained from the dreams. Participants included 25 Canadian male soldiers with operational experience in Afghanistan as well as an age and gender matched control group of 25 Canadian male civilians. Each participant filled out The Storytelling Method worksheet, and discovery passages were coded following Hall and Van de Castle content analysis guidelines. Many significant relationships were found among discovery categories for soldiers. Categories of discovery from the dream were significantly different between soldiers and civilians and support the continuity hypothesis, as was found in previous research with dream imagery. As expected, soldiers had discovery relating to specific events from tours overseas as well as much more discovery about the past when compared to civilians. Years of service in the military was also correlated with relevant discovery categories for soldiers. Limitations as well as future directions for dream interpretation techniques with soldiers are discussed.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImagination Cognition and PersonalitySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207