From Freud to Android: Constructing a scale of uncanny feelings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uncanny valley is a topic for engineers, animators, and psychologists, yet uncanny emotions are without a clear definition. Across three studies, we developed an 8-item measure of unnerved feelings, finding that it was discriminable from other affective experiences. In Study 1, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis that yielded two factors; an unnerved factor, which connects to emotional reactions to the uncanny, and a disoriented factor, which connects to mental state changes more distally following uncanny experiences. Focusing on the unnerved measure, Study 2 tests the convergent and discriminant validity, concluding that participants who watched an uncanny video were more unnerved than those who watched a disgusting, fearful, or a neutral video. In Study 3, we determined that our scale detects unnerved feelings created during early 2020 by the coronavirus pandemic; a distinct source of uncanniness. These studies contribute to the psychological and interdisciplinary understanding of this strange, eerie phenomenon of being confronted with what looms just beyond our understanding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".