MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Noetic Signature Inventory: 12-Factor Confirmatory Analysis

2023· preprint· en· W4384206852 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helané Wahbeh, Michael Kriegsman

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisStatisticPsychologyStructural equation modelingDemographyMedicineStatisticsClinical psychologyMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The Noetic Signature Inventory (NSI) is a 44-item self-report questionnaire that evaluates people’s experiences of intuition or inner knowing. Previous research developing and validating the measure demonstrated its validity and reliability, and a 12-factor model describing the variability of noetic experiences was found. This current study aims to confirm this factor model in a new population. Methods In a cross-sectional study, 1,752 participants completed demographic information and the NSI. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted on the collected data. Results Participants were 49.3 ± 14.8 years old with 16.6 ± 3.4 years of education. They hailed from 62 countries although most were from the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. The CFA results for the 12-factor model were as follows: the chi square statistic equaled 2866.65 with 836 degrees of freedom and p < .001. The model diagnostics demonstrated a very good model fit to the data. All 44 items had factor loadings above the 0.5 cutoff, ranging from 0.58 to 0.77, with an average factor loading of 0.71. Conclusions The 12-factor structure of the NSI was confirmed, supporting its potential as a valid and reliable tool for assessing noetic characteristics. However, there are limitations to consider, and further research is needed to confirm and extend the findings in diverse populations and settings. The findings contribute to our understanding of the multidimensionality of these phenomena. Future research could build upon these findings by replicating the factor structure of the NSI in other populations, incorporating objective measures, conducting longitudinal studies, exploring underlying mechanisms, and using qualitative research methods to gain a deeper understanding of inner knowing experiences.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207