MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004947869 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105176

Multimodal brain data and core dimensions of creativity

2020· article· en· W3004947869 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan Poppenk

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's UniversityCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyNeuroimagingTest (biology)Set (abstract data type)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current dataset incorporates multimodal brain imaging and creativity test data from a sample of 66 healthy young adults, all of whom were healthy right-handed English speakers, aged 22 to 35, with normal or corrected-to-normal hearing and vision. The participants completed measures of divergent thinking (Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults; ATTA), everyday creativity (Creative Behaviour Inventory; CBI), and creative achievement (Creative Achievement Questionnaire; CAQ), consistent with the known multidimensional nature of creativity. They also completed high-resolution anatomical scans (T1-weighted and T2-weighted), diffusion tensor imaging scans, and resting state fMRI scans. The data were originally used in the article Neuroimaging predictors of creativity in healthy adults by Sunavsky and Poppenk [1] to test a set of confirmatory predictions regarding the volumetric, structural connectivity, and functional connectivity correlates of creativity. The data are uniquely high-dimensional in measuring both multiple dimensions of creativity as well as multimodal brain data, and may be valuable to researchers for testing models of individual differences in creativity, or who are seeking to integrate multiple datasets for large-scale, multi-site analysis of creativity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207