Creative activity as a coping mechanism for the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the use of creative activities as a coping mechanism for the COVID-19 pandemic. Students, as well as social media participants, were asked to describe some of the activities they undertook during the months of quarantine from February to August of 2020. It was expected that individuals who actively participated in creative tasks, such as painting, yoga, or writing, would exhibit greater resilience to the negative effects of social isolation. An online survey was administered to participants both at a university and in the community. Participants assessed their emotional state two weeks prior to participating in the study, described a creative activity they did, the motivation behind choosing it, how it made them feel, as well as their attitudes toward the pandemic. Participants feeling the most adverse effects of COVID-19 turned to creative activities as an outlet for their negative emotions. This finding indicates that creativity may have therapeutic effects for individuals struggling with the COVID-19 pandemic. A positive correlation was found between a positive outlook towards the pandemic and both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for choosing the activity, resulting in greater commitment to the activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".