MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042433901 · doi:10.1177/0276236620942465

Understanding Fantasy and Adult Doll Play Through Regression in Service of the Self

2020· article· en· W3042433901 on OpenAlexaff
Angelie Ignacio, Gerald C. Cupchik

Bibliographic record

VenueImagination Cognition and Personality · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFantasyPsychologyHobbySocial psychologySample (material)Task (project management)Test (biology)Developmental psychologyVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored doll play activities involving adult doll collectors, and students who participated in an experimental story creation task which incorporated dolls/toy images and urban/landscape settings. It was expected that a secure versus insecure sense of self would perform a mediating role. The study involved two data collections: Online and Laboratory. Both phases used a 10 item questionnaire regarding participant’s sense of self. The online phase measured attitudes about fantasy and play, along with creative aspects of the doll hobby by adult collectors. The laboratory phase sought to determine whether doll play activity involving undergraduate students could be simulated in a laboratory setting. We found that in both samples, a positive correlation was found between insecure sense of self and fantasy proneness. This indicates that adult collectors and to an extent undergraduates may utilize fantasy (e.g., world building) and doll play as an act of defensive regression to resolve internal conflicts. Subsequently, a negative correlation between planning the doll aesthetic and fantasy proneness was found in the adult collectors’ sample, which may indicate regression in service of the self.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImagination Cognition and PersonalitySame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207