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
In contrast to how recent definitions of hypnosis describe the induction, a work-sample perspective is advocated that characterizes the induction as an initial, stage-setting phase encompassing everything in a hypnotic session up to the first hypnotic suggestion of particular relevance to the therapeutic or research goals at hand. Four major ways are then discussed in which the induction could affect subsequent hypnotic responses: It may provide information about how subsequent behaviors are to be enacted; it may provide cues about the nature of the interpersonal interaction to be expected in hypnosis; it may provide meta-suggestions, defined as suggestive statements intended to enhance responses to subsequent hypnotic suggestions; and it may provide a clear transition to help allow new behaviors and experiences to emerge. Several ideas for future research are advanced, such as mapping hypnosis style onto the interpersonal circumplex, evaluating whether attentional-state changes measured at the end of the induction actually mediate subsequent hypnotic responsiveness, and systematically examining the impact of ritual-like aspects of inductions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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