MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Development of Creative Thinking as a Tool of Social Adaptation of Teenagers with Behaviour Deviation

2019· article· en· W2995832474 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Borys A. Yakymchuk, N.V. Hurtovenko, Svitlana M. Makarenko, С. В. Албул, N. A. Dobrovolska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)PsychologySocial changeDevelopmental psychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the activities aimed at developing creative thinking had rendered the social adaptation of adolescents with deviant behaviour smooth and evaluate the changes which had resulted from that engagement. The research data were collected through the use of project checklists, student learning outcomes analysis, interviews with teachers and parents, questionnaires. This study used SPSS and SmartPLS statistical analysis tools to analyze the above data and Textalyser application to process the focus group responses. The study found that the participation of the secondary school students with behaviour deviation in legacy projects make their social adaptation easier, improves their social skills and creative thinking style. This study confirms that there is a positive relationship between socially important creative activities, learning motivation and development of creative thinking styles. It has been found that, despite the considerable amount of research regarding the use of creative activity to develop social adaptation skills in adolescents, the problem of social adaptation of adolescents with behaviour deviation has not been sufficiently explored through engaging them in activities aimed at developing creative thinking. The process of social adaptation of adolescents with behaviour deviation is complex and the creative component is in place there, since it supplies the educational process with irreplaceable pedagogical tools that have the potential to "restart" the student’s physiological and psycho-motivational spheres.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and TreatmentSame topicPsychology of Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207