MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309701086 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/5m2hw

Can Psychology Tell Us About Someone’s Essence?

2022· preprint· en· W4309701086 on OpenAlexaff
Liane Gabora

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamFeelingPsychologyStyle (visual arts)Social psychologyPsychoanalysisPersonalityTest (biology)AestheticsArtPsychotherapistVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When someone crosses your mind, or appears in a dream, how do you know it’s them you’re thinking or dreaming about? It’s likely something more abstract than their appearance: their core self, their élan vital, the feeling that washes over you when you’re in that person’s presence. A person's personality test scores tell us little about the unique feeling we get when we think or dream about them, or spend time with them. This paper posits that the closest psychology gets to revealing something about a person's unique essence is research on individual creative style. During creative practice, people scour and transform their memories and mental models, which realigns them with their essence, or truest 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207