Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fear is the most powerful emotion of mankind, till the fear of unknown represent most primordial fear. We are presenting some motives and psychological defense mechanisms which with psychology of people who like horror movies and literature. Our proposal and classification is: Catarsic moment; Contrafobic repetation; Behavioral desensitization; Scotophilia; Metaphysical searching for the meaningfulness; Paradoxal intention. Violence in the sense of genre, become very powerful. There are existence of publics which do not want artistic contests, but only the violence which will transformate watching the movie in the nervous experience, but it is also possible that the movies of horror, death and violence represent replacement for the ritual. Medium replacement more and more function and role of tradition. Horror make the real that what is the repressed, which is not acceptable for conscious mind. The opinion of the Canadian movies director Cronenberg , is that the people who think that is the horror movies get a bad influence on young people are made mistake. That what people are look at the screen as a contents of horror movies such as a destruction, violence, revulsion, think Cronenberg, could be factor of spectators ego growth, who are passing all the through, and going out from the movie theater in one piece, physical and emotional intact. Besides different attitudes about aesthetic and artistic value of horror movies and literature it is cliar that exist a lot of psychological mechanism (from the side of authors and consumers) which are insert in the genesis of this genre, and that are also exist mixture of the border between pathological and therapeutic. We believed that our question is not to retoric. Does exist the structure of person who need to avoid this genre, such as these which could be accept some positive experience from horror genre .
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".