PREDICTION OF CREATIVITY ON THE BASIS OF ALEXITHYMIA’S COMPONENTS
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
Background: One of the basis of humanity achievement is creativity. There are several factors that can increase and decrease the amount of creativity; according to the literature one of these factors is Alexithymia. Purpose: The type of relation and effects of Alexithymia on creativity in Iran is not investigated yet. Thus, the aim of the study was prediction of creativity on the basis of Alexithymia’s components in Tabriz university students. Method: A number of 211 students were chosen by the ratio sampling method. For data collection Abedi Creativity Scale and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) were used. The data were analyzed in SPSS 18.0 using Pearson correlation coefficient and multivariate regression method. Results: according to the results, creativity negatively correlated with alexithymia’s component and also the results showed that alexithymia’s components (difficulty identifying feeling, difficulty describing feeling, externally oriented thinking) significantly predict creativities changing’s. Hence, only beta coefficient of difficulty identifying feelings significantly can explain creativity. Conclusion: The study pointed that high creativity levels is associated with low Alexithymia dimensions, therefore for increasing creativity, researchers can plan programs that reduce Alexithymia.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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