Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bricolage is a term used in several disciplines, among them the visual arts and literature, and it is often described as the notion of creating or constructing something using a range of objects that happen to be available (Oxford Dictionary). As a design concept, bricolage refers to building by experimentation or ‘trial and error’ as opposed to production according to some predetermined pattern. As such it allows the bottom-up, or inside-out emergence of content and structure rather than one being imposed down from the top. I propose to use this concept as a metaphor to explore and explain the links between madness and creativity. The belief that madness is linked with creative thinking has been held for centuries, and since the 1970’s scientific studies have established an unusually high rate of mental illness (mainly bipolar disorder) amongst highly creative individuals. This has led to further research in the quest to identify more specific connections between the two. Psychologists from the University of Toronto and Harvard University have identified one of the biological bases of creativity. The study’s results suggest that the brains of creative people appear to be more open to incoming stimuli from the environment. It has been observed that decreased latent inhibition of environmental stimuli appears to correlate with greater creativity among people with high IQ. Other people’s brains might shut out the same information through a process called “latent inhibition” which is described as an unconscious mental process to ignore, ‘filter’ or ‘screen out’ stimuli or information that is considered marginal or irrelevant to the task at hand. Given the overwhelming amount of information received constantly by the brain through the different senses, I propose to explore how a decreased latent inhibition can give rise to the juxtaposition of images, sounds and thoughts, and to explain this in relation to the links between madness and creativity, with use of bricolage, chaos and complexity theory.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".