MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048769822

Defence Mechanism in The Purpose of Colin Reeds’ Imaginary Companion in Finding Paradise Game

2020· dissertation· en· W3048769822 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Nur Kamilah, Nina Farlina

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe ImaginaryCharacter (mathematics)PsychoanalysisId, ego and super-egoPsychologyFantasyParadiseFreudian slipOedipus complexLonelinessPersonalityDreamSociologySocial psychologyArtPsychoanalytic theoryLiteratureArt historyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the main character of Finding Paradise (2017) game, Colin Reeds, directed and written by Kan Gao, and produced by Freebird Games Canada. The purpose and significance of this research are to understand, analyse, and explain the main character’s personality through Freudian psychoanalysis approach related to defence mechanism that is related to the purpose of imaginary companion. This research is using qualitative method and descriptive analysis technique to analyse the defence mechanism that happened in the main character’s personality problems and his attachment to his imaginary companion. This analysis is done after analysing the main character using character and characterization theory by Petrie W. Dennis and Joseph M. Boggs. Based on the analysis, the writer concludes that Colin Reeds has several anxieties related to loneliness. Soon his ego solved it by creating an imaginary companion named as Faye. Colin’s creation of Faye was based on his need of a trustworthy friend caused by the frequent absence of his parents and the lack of respect by his friends. Furthermore, Faye also helped him reaching his dream of flying, playing music better, and solving the anxiety that he had towards finding new friends and the existence of Sigmund Corp in the end. This research found that Faye’s existence includes the effort to maintain Colin’s personality balanced which could possibly come from the causes mentioned above and the further that came. Through Faye’s existence, he ran several defence mechanisms to overcome his anxieties, such as fantasy, projection, introjection, suppression, regression, and repression.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207