Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disciplined psychophysical training is commonly thought to facilitate spontaneity, freedom and creative flow, especially in the context of devised performance. My thesis develops an explanatory framework for intuitive creativity through a critical negotiation of empirical and phenomenological epistemologies. \nI weave Stanovich’s tripartite model of consciousness and Vervaeke’s theory of relevance realization into an enactivist understanding of cognition, whereby performers and audiences alike make sense of the world around them through an exercise of embodied skills. This thesis demonstrates the persistent utility of this framework through an interdisciplinary analysis of the following: \n- tacit versus mindful learning \n- empathetic social coordination \n- expert performance in cultural domains \n- Vygotsky’s theories of play \nI ultimately mark a departure from cognitive linguistic models of embodied metaphor and conceptual blending theory. Rather, I propose that in the optimally spontaneous enactment of sustained collaborative flow, devising performers can negotiate frameworks of meaningful play by intuitively coordinating their sense-making practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 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".