MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367322718 · doi:10.1080/10400419.2023.2205702

When Do Ruminations About Life-Threatening Crises Threaten Creativity? The Critical Role of Resilience

2023· article· en· W4367322718 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCreativity Research Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityResilience (materials science)PsychologyEnvironmental ethicsSocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study adds to creativity research by investigating the connection between employees’ ruminations about life-threatening crises and their creative work behavior, with a specific focus on the mediating role of their experiences of personal life-to-work conflict and the moderating role of their resilience in this connection. Cross-sectional survey data (N = 710) gathered from employees who operate in the health-related distribution sector indicate that a key factor that underpins the connection between persistent worries about deadly crises and thwarted creativity at work is that personal life worries spill over into the work domain, but this detrimental effect is less salient if employees can bounce back from difficult situations. For organizations, this investigation reveals a critical conduit, personal life – induced work strain, through which employees’ struggles to ban negative thoughts about excruciating crises translate into a lower propensity to develop novel ideas for organizational improvement. It also reveals how organizations can mitigate this risk by making their workforce more resilient.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.367 · 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