MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996394985 · doi:10.1177/0162353212451704

Overexcitabilities and Giftedness Research

2012· article· en· W1996394985 on OpenAlexaff
Sal Mendaglio

Bibliographic record

Venuejournal for the education of the gifted · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Cognitive psychologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been an increase in publications of quantitative research studies investigating overexcitabilities (OEs) and giftedness. On one hand, increased interest in OEs bodes well for the dissemination of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (TPD), from which OEs are derived. On the other hand, recent research raises concerns regarding the assumptions underlying the research methods in common use. This article argues that the assumptions regarding OEs and their relationship to giftedness evident in recent research run counter to Dabrowskian theorizing. Due to the uniqueness and coherence of TPD, the article concludes by noting the need for a paradigm shift when researchers investigate TPD concepts such as OE.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuejournal for the education of the giftedSame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207