MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403779189 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-75885-1

First-person thought is associated with body awareness in daily life

2024· article· en· W4403779189 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra MacVittie, Ewa Kochanowska, Julia W. Y. Kam, Laura Allen, Caitlin Mills, Jolie B. Wormwood

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersArmy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
KeywordsComputer scienceData sciencePsychologyGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensations from the body are thought to play a critical role in many aspects of conscious experience, including first-person thought. In the present set of studies, we examined within-person relationships between in-the-moment subjective awareness of sensations from the body and self-reported first-person thought in real-world settings using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocols. In Study 1, participants reported experiencing greater first-person thoughts in moments when they also reported heightened awareness of sensations from their body, and this relationship was stable over a 4-week period even with mean-level changes in body awareness and first-person thought. In Study 2, we replicated this association in a 1-week EMA protocol using both self-report measures and measures derived from participants' open-ended descriptions of their ongoing thoughts using a natural language processing approach. Taken together, findings shed light on the role of subjective body awareness in other facets of conscious experience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→French-language works237,207→