Who is the creative subject? Creativity discourse as a hidden global curriculum: Analysis of South Korean media discourses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In my proposed paper, I examine the discourse of creativity in South Korea that has become a part of the commonly used term in education policy and curriculum literature. The discourse of creativity existed in various forms in the West, but has exploded and become prevalent as a discourse of development since the current turn. The most popularized idea in the education field is that creativity is a necessary skill that needs to be cultivated for the students to survive the technological and economic changes in the contemporary world (Robinson 2006). Furthermore, there is a circulating global discourse that evaluates each nation’s competence through the standard of marketable creativity (Florida 2002). Although some critical scholars have noted that creativity works as neoliberal governmentality (McRobbie 2016, Bill 2009), not enough attention is given to the global hierarchy of youth produced through this discourse. In my proposed presentation, I will analyze the creativity discourse in the South, particularly South Korean media texts, to examine the categorization of youth into those who are valuable for the future of the nation and those who are put into precarious spaces.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".