MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328049368 · doi:10.1177/10731911231161780

Trait Boredom as a Lack of Agency: A Theoretical Model and a New Assessment Tool

2023· article· en· W4328049368 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBoredomPsychologyTraitAgency (philosophy)Social psychologyApplied psychologyClinical psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trait boredom plays a significant role in well-being. However, this construct suffers from conceptual ambiguity and measurement problems. The aim of this study was to propose a comprehensive theory and a strong assessment tool to address these limitations. We defined trait boredom as the frequent experience of state boredom resulting from a chronic lack of agency. We developed a six-item self-report scale of the tendency to often experience boredom. Results confirmed a uni-dimensional scale with strong psychometric properties, including adequate internal consistency (ω = .84-.93), interindividual stability (69.04% of variance accounted by a trait factor), and acceptable model fit (CFI = .977-.998, TLI = .962-.997, RMSEA = .025-.090, SRMR = .014-.029). Results confirmed the validity of the scale by showing its associations with related measures. Our findings provide clarity on trait boredom and a strong, new measure to be used in future work.

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.

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 score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.293 · 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