MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157337368 · doi:10.1177/0018726704044308

Person–Environment Fit and Creative Behavior: Differential Impacts of Supplies–Values and Demands–Abilities Versions of Fit

2004· article· en· W2157337368 on OpenAlexafffund
Jin Nam Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Relations · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyContext (archaeology)Social psychologyEnvironmental psychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies that have demonstrated interaction effects between individual and contextual factors suggest the potential positive effect of congruent personal and environmental characteristics on creativity. None of the prior studies, however, has explicitly and systematically tested the formal theory of person–environment fit in the context of creativity. This study examined the effects of two versions of person–environment fit (supplies–values and demands–abilities fit) on creative behavior and context satisfaction. The results, based on longitudinal data collected from management students and their instructors, showed that creative behavior was almost exclusively predicted by personal characteristics (desire for creative climate, actual creative abilities), whereas context satisfaction was strongly influenced by environmental characteristics (current creative climate, required creative abilities). The present results indicate a potential division of roles between personal and environmental characteristics with respect to affective and behavioral outcomes. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations98
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman RelationsSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207