De la créativité pour une meilleure qualité de vie durant un cancer : une étude expérimentale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif est de repérer les liens existants entre créativité, qualité de vie et émotions négatives dans un contexte de cancer et d’identifier le concept qui impacte le plus la qualité de vie. Un échantillon de 35 patients en oncologie est à la base de cette étude (moyenne 61 ans + 11). Les outils d’évaluation utilisés sont : les cubes de Corsi et le Big Five Inventory, le Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, le Toronto Alexithymia Scale, et le World Health Organisation Quality Of Life. La créativité a des liens significatifs avec la dépression, l’alexithymie et la qualité de vie (r = -.43 ; p < .05 et r = -.31 ; p < .10 et r = .54 ; p < .01, respectivement). De plus, la créativité est la variable qui impacte le plus la qualité de vie (β = .32 ; p = .05). Ces résultats appuient l’idée que la créativité est un facteur important à prendre en compte pour maintenir la qualité de vie du patient ayant un cancer.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".