When Did You Last Predict a Good Idea?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been noted elsewhere that an idea is acknowledged to be creative if it is novel, or surprising and adaptive. So how does that fit with education's desire to measure student performance against fixed, consistent and predicted learning outcomes? This study explores practical measures and theoretical constructs that address the dearth of teaching, learning and assessment strategies to enhance creative capacity in enterprise and entrepreneurship education. It is argued that inappropriate assessment strategies can be significant inhibitors of the creativity of students and teachers. Referring to the broader discipline of ‘design’, as defined by Bruce and Besant (2002) – the application of human creativity to a purpose – both broad employer satisfaction with education and fast growing economic success are found (DCMS, 2014). As predictable assessment outcomes equal predictable students, these understandings can inform educators who wish to map and develop enhanced creative endeavours such as opportunity recognition, communication and innovation.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it