Boredom signals deviation from a cognitive homeostatic set point
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boredom is the feeling of wanting but failing to engage the mind and can be conceived as one among many signals of suboptimal utilization of cognitive and neural resources. Using homeostasis as an analogy, this perspective argues that boredom represents a signal indicating deviation from optimal engagement—that is, deviation from a cognitive homeostatic set point. Within this model, allostasis accounts for chronic boredom (i.e., trait boredom proneness), according to which faulty internal models are responsible for why the highly boredom prone may set unrealistic expectations for engagement. In other words, the model characterizes boredom as a dynamic response to both internal and external exigencies, leading to testable hypotheses for both the nature of the state and the trait disposition. Furthermore, this perspective presents the broader notion that humans strive to optimally engage with their environs to maintain a kind of cognitive homeostatic set-point. Humans are driven to deploy their cognitive and neural resources in optimal ways – to maintain a kind of cognitive homeostasis. This perspective outlines the case of boredom as a signal of deviation from that optimal cognitive homeostatic range.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".