P02-94 - Creativity Construct and its Links to Alexithymia and Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creativity plays an important positive role in people's social and personal life (Flach, 1990; Runco, 2004). On the other hand, alexithymia and depression may affect psychological well being in a negative way and lead to mental health problems (e.g. Honkalampi et al., 2007; Warnes, 1986). The current study investigated the relationship between these three constructs (creativity, alexithymia and depression) and hypothesised that there are negative relationships between creativity and alexithymia as well as between creativity and depression. 39 participants, aged between18-58 (mean age 30) completed the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) for the assessment of alexithymia and the Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI-II) for the assessment of depression. To investigate levels of creativity, participants completed a test of drawing preferences (Barron-Welsh Revised Art Scale (RAS)). The results showed a negative correlation between creativity and alexithymia and positive correlation between alexithymia and depression. Although previous research has found support for a link between creativity and depression it has been described controversially in literature (e.g. Andresen, 2008; Pickering, 1974). The current study did not find a significant correlation between creativity and depression. The results reflect the complexity of the creativity - depression relationship and the need for further research, with more precise control for the type and severity of depression.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".