Dreams of Canadian Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 600 dream reports were collected from 300 Canadian university students, 150 female and 150 male, and their content analyzed with the Hall and Van de Castle (1966) system of categories. The main dream content categories were characters, aggressive and friendly interactions, positive and negative emotions, and dream outcomes. The main purpose of the analysis was to provide normative data for a large sample of young Canadians to determine (a) whether negative elements prevail over positive ones, as assumed by the threat simulation theory and (b) whether dream gender differences are consistent with differences in waking life, in accordance with the continuity hypothesis. Overall, findings support both theories. The final objective was to compare the Canadian data, relative to gender differences, with normative data established in 1966 with the original American sample. Findings for males and females and gender differences remain consistent with the American normative data for most categories despite a 50 years interval. Similarities in Canadian and American dream content reflect similarities between the respective cultures. They also attest to fundamental structural dimensions of dream content that transcend cultures. Other types of content analysis relative to themes, for instance, might be appropriate to highlight cultural differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".