Giftedness and Creativity of Students and Teachers in the Process of Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper conceptually defines the categories of giftedness and creativity and associates them with the role of teachers and students in their realization in the process of education. It examines the basic abilities that a teacher should possess and the methods that should be used for proper identification of students’ potential and for their overall development. Giftedness is not reduced to the rational intelligence but is understood in the context of wider spiritual content for the identification of which the enhanced creative sensibility of teachers is essential.Ways in which teachers can encourage students' creative energy are: a) recognizing wonderment as the basic cognitive impulse, b) identifying and motivating curiosity as a good way of introducing the process of free-thinking, c) developing the gift of observation as an ability of keen sensual and spiritual perception, with which one can discover latent creative energy, d) fostering eloquence as the basis for successful development of verbal communication skills, f) strengthening moral qualities as an assumption of feelings of safety, empathy, motivation of the spirit of tolerance and formation of a positive attitude to life.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".