MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410482360 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaf090.0083

0083 The Multiplicity of Dreams Reported from Nightly Awakenings

2025· article· en· W4410482360 on OpenAlexaff
J.F. Pagel, Geoff Carre

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Dream recall has high individual variability affected by a wide spectrum of methodological variables. The possibility that multiple dreams are typically experienced each night has received minimal study. Methods 51 subjects were recruited from college psychology classes (35 F/16 M, mean age 22.2). The intake questionnaire queried subject dream recall varying from no dream recall=1, to multiple dreams from each night of sleep=7. A smart phone app with a sixty-minute delay was then used at home to induce hourly awakenings utilizing a bed side check list to notate: no dreaming or defined forms of dreaming including dreams with content, white dreams (awareness of dreaming without content), and nightmares. 44 subjects (86%) competed the full protocol of 8 dream checkoff reports. Reasons for discontinuation: concern with sleep loss (1), technical issues with alarm (2), early rising for work (1), spousal complaint (1). Results The mean number of dreams reported on intake using Likert scale was 4.647 (1-3/week). Checkoff dream recall reports were obtained from 395 total awakenings: no dreaming (#150 - 38%); content dreams #98 (25%); white dreams #74 (19%); and nightmares # 14 (3.5%). Some form of dreaming was reported on 186 (47%) of awakenings. Mean number of dreams reported was 4.0/individual during the night of study. One individual reported no dream recall on any awakening and 2/51 reported dreams with content on every awakening. 6/51 (12%) reported some form of dreaming at every awakening. For individuals completing the full protocol, non-dreaming was reported significantly more often on the first two hourly awakenings compared to the last 2 awakenings (X2=24.7, p< 0.001). There was a statistically significant association between reported intake questionnaire dream recall and the number of dreams reported on checklist during the night of study (Pearson r = 0.571, p < 0.001). Conclusion This small pilot study utilizes a novel, low-tec, safe, and easily expandable protocol to study changes dream recall across the night. Individuals reporting a higher frequency of dream recall on intake had a significantly higher level of dreaming reported from serial awakenings. 12 % of subjects reported some form of dreaming on every awakening. Support (if any) none

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207