Epistemological style and its relationship to creativity and depression.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was undertaken to examine the relationship between epistemological style, creativity, and depression. A measure assessing epistemological styles was administered to 177 undergraduate students in different degree programs at the University of Windsor. The participants were divided into three groups based on their dominant epistemological style (empirical, rational, and metaphorical). The three epistemological style groups were then compared on measures of creativity and depression. Data analysis entailed the use of descriptive statistics, correlations, and multivariate statistics to test the hypothesis that epistemological style is related to creativity and/or depression. Results indicate statistically significant differences among epistemological style groups with regard to level of creativity, with predominantly metaphorical individuals scoring higher on the measure of creativity than predominantly empirical or rational individuals. No significant differences on creativity were found between the latter two groups. Measures of depression were not significantly different between the groups.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2003 .S36. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 42-02, page: 0696. Adviser: Jim Porter. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2003.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".