MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800747902 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsy061.936

0937 Worst Nightmares Versus Idiopathic Nightmares: A Content Analysis

2018· article· en· W2800747902 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antonio Zadra, Geneviève Robert, A Duquette, Veronica English

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNightmareDreamContent (measure theory)PsychologyNarrativePsychopathologyLearned helplessnessMental healthPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychotherapistLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies have investigated different aspects of nightmares (e.g., frequency, association to psychopathology), but relatively few have examined nightmares’ thematic content. We investigated the content of the worst nightmare recalled by men and women and compared the results to those previously obtained with idiopathic nightmares. Written reports of the worst nightmare ever experienced were obtained from 78 men (mean age = 25.5 ± 10.2 years) and 78 women matched for age (mean age = 25.2 ± 9.7 years) via a questionnaire assessing a variety of sleep and dream experiences. Variables of interest included the nightmares’ thematic content and narrative development. Men and women reported that their worst nightmare occurred at 14.2 and 15.1 years of age, respectively. The mean length (word count) of men’s worst nightmare was 73.8 ± 40.9 words and 81.2 ± 36.8 words for women. 53% of men and 63% of women reported that their worst nightmare reoccurred over time. The two most frequently reported themes by men as well as women were being confronted by evil forces (21%) and being chased (12%). Other commonly reported themes included being physically attacked (M=8%, W=17%), environmental anomalies (M=4%, W=8%), helplessness (M=6%, W=8%) and health-related problems (M=5%, W=4%). As was true for idiopathic nightmares, men’s worst nightmares were more likely to contain themes of large-scale disasters (e.g., wars, tornados, end of the world) than were women’s nightmares. While the theme of evil forces was twice as frequent in worst nightmares than in idiopathic nightmares, themes involving interpersonal conflicts were rare (2.5%) even though they characterize 20% of idiopathic nightmares. Worst and idiopathic nightmares showed similarities in terms of narrative development (how dreams turn into nightmares), including their ending. Contrary to popular belief, themes of falling were rare, occurring in less than 3% of all nightmares. These findings reveal that unlike idiopathic nightmares, worst nightmares contain a restricted range of themes centred around malevolent forces, pursuit and physical aggression and that their content profiles show few gender differences. Research supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207