Alexithymia and Impoverished Dream Content: Evidence From Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Awakenings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the repeated suggestion in the literature of an association between impoverished dream processes and alexithymia, little systematic research has been conducted. METHODS: Eight nonclinical adults scoring in the alexithymia range and eight nonclinical adults scoring in the nonalexithymia range on a measure of alexithymia were awakened for dream reports during their second, third, and fourth rapid eye movement periods on the second of two consecutive polygraphically monitored nights in a sleep laboratory. RESULTS: The alexithymic and nonalexithymic groups did not differ in the number of dreams reported or the number of words used in the description of their dreams. The two groups also did not differ in their self-reports of the emotional valence associated with their dream experiences. In contrast, the dream reports of the alexithymic group were rated as less fantastic than the dream reports of the nonalexithymic group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide additional evidence that alexithymia involves restricted imaginative processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it