The role of individual differences and attitude in willingness to participate in TMS studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding neurophysiological research participants can be challenging, especially when the technology used in the research study is less known, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Despite this well-known phenomenon, there is limited literature investigating the factors involved in willingness to participate and perceived barriers from the potential participants' perspective. This paper explored the relationship between individual differences, attitudes toward TMS, and willingness to participate in TMS research alongside perceived barriers to participation and concerns when considering participating. The findings suggest that participants who had more positive attitudes towards TMS were more willing to participate. Participants frequently reported being concerned about safety, including risks and side effects. For barriers in terms of safety parameters, the number of participants who were eligible based on their TMS safety screening questionnaire was low, particularly for older adults. These findings are discussed in the context of the literature, and practical guidelines are provided for researchers looking to plan TMS recruitment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it