MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617015654 · doi:10.11588/ijodr.2014.2.9409

Non-gaming computer use relationship to type of dream

2014· article· en· W2617015654 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library Heidelberg · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamActive listeningPsychologyComputer gameLucid dreamVideo gameSocial psychologyMultimediaComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new waking influence has emerged that is becoming so widely experienced that it bears further consideration in its own right as to it’s influence on subsequent night time dreams. That is, digital life. It ranges from listening to music to texting to checking facebook status to playing video games to information checking. All of these activities are computer mediated. In this inquiry, students at a western Canadian university indicated if they had played computer games or used the computer for non-gaming purposes during the day prior to a recent dream they reported. Respondents indicated their confidence about the type of dream they reported as well their video game play habits and generic media used the day prior to the dream. There was some indication that the high end non-gaming computer use group had more lucid (females only) and control dreams but less bizarre dreams. Unlike previous research there were no differences in nightmares or bad dreams among groups. This was discussed in terms of previous video game play and dreams research.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.194 · 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