MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131264898 · doi:10.5539/jel.v1n2p15

Play, Imagination, and Creativity: A Brief Literature Review

2012· article· en· W2131264898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kuan Chen Tsai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyFace (sociological concept)Order (exchange)Creativity techniqueEveryday lifeMathematics educationPedagogyTeaching methodSociologySocial psychologyEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What the ultimate goal for education is to help students develop their capabilities and in turn to maximize theirpotentials into practical uses in everyday life. In fact, teachers are critical resources at their disposal to facilitatemaximum students learning experience and to release students’ potentials in classrooms. It is believed thatcreativity is an important capacity for students to possess in order to face this fast-changing world. The purpose ofcurrent study is to review related literature on play, imagination, and creativity. By doing so, it is hoped to providesome useful insights for educators to bring those concepts into classrooms in terms of promoting creativity. Finally,several creativity strategies for facilitating creativity are discussed. The overall results of the literature reviewsuggest that educators should bring play and imagination in their classrooms in order to encourage creativity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.368 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations69
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207