Living With the Gift of Giftedness: An Exploratory Study on the Well-Being of Intellectually Gifted Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While it is now argued that intellectual giftedness is not causally associated with well-being, the individual and environmental determinants associated remain empirically underexplored. Trying to fill this gap, this study investigated potential risk and protective factors on the well-being and mental health of 219 Canadian intellectually gifted adults. Exploratory transversal analyses were conducted between 11 determinants frequently evoked in the literature on intellectually gifted individuals and hedonic well-being (positive/negative affect; ∝ = .85-.87; satisfaction with life; ∝ = .88), eudemonic well-being (existential crisis/meaning in life; ∝ = .76-.87; interpersonal connection; ∝ = 92) and psychopathologies. Results show that twice-exceptionality and lower socioeconomic status are risk factors for the development of psychopathologies, while being married/in civil union and having a higher perceived level of potential achievement are protective factors for hedonic and eudemonic well-being. Results are discussed in light of previous knowledge about gifted individuals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".