Characteristics of creative individuals: An umbrella review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The properties of creative products-novelty and usefulness-are generally agreed upon by researchers. Yet, consensus is lacking on which personal and environmental factors contribute to an individual's creative potential, or to what extent. substantial research work has been conducted in this area, leading to the publication of many systematic reviews and meta-analyses collating the available evidence. However, many of these reviews have differing methodological and theoretical characteristics, and often report conflicting results. To summarize the current review literature on factors associated with creativity and better understand the similarities and discrepancies among reviews on the same topic, we plan to conduct an umbrella review of reviews. METHODS: This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H78YS). We will search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed reviews exploring factors associated with creativity. The quality of the included reviews will be assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), and the degree of study overlap across reviews assessed through calculation of the corrected covered area (CCA). Descriptive analyses will be performed to synthesize the results of the included reviews. We plan to use the results to create a holistic framework of the factors associated with creativity, which could be used to cross-validate existing creativity theories, or create new ones. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this umbrella review will be published in a relevant psychology-focused journal and presented at local, national and international conferences. As all data is peer-reviewed and presented in aggregate, we will not require ethics approval.
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 | 0.184 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.031 |
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".