MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596960053 · doi:10.4324/9780203981665

Evaluating Creativity

2005· book· en· W1596960053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julian Sefton‐Green

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityThe artsDramaVisual artsArt schoolVisual arts educationSociologyShadow (psychology)ArtBuckinghamPostmodernismMedia studiesArt historyPsychologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Introduction: Evaluating Creativity Julian Sefton-Green, Weekend Arts College 2. Art Education and Talk: From Modernist Silence to Postmodern Chatter Karen Ramey, University of East London and Howard Hollands, Middlesex University 3. Evaluation and Design and Technology John Garvey, Brunel University School of Education and Anthony Quinlan, Sudbury Junior School, Wembley 4. Writing in English and Responding to Writing Muriel Robinson, University of Brighton and Viv Ellis, University of Brighton 5. Music as a Media Art: Evaluation and Assessment in the Contemporary Classroom Lucy Green, London University Institute of Education 6. Measuring the Shadow or Knowing the Bird: Evaluation and Assessment in Drama Education John Somers, Exeter University 7. Making the Grade: Evaluating Student Production in Media Studies David Buckingham, Institute of Education University of London, Pete Fraser, Long Road Sixth Form College, Cambridge and Julian Sefton-Green, Weekend Arts College 8. Whose Art is it Anyway? Art Education outside the Classroom Rebecca Sinker, Middlesex University 9. Making Multimedia: Evaluating Young People's Creative Multimedia Production Rebecca Sinker, Middlesex University 10. From Creativity to Cultural Production: Shared Perspectives Julian Sefton-Green, Weekend Arts College

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.017

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207