Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, by James C. Kaufman and Robert J. Sternberg (Eds.) Cambridge University Press, 2010, 508 pages (ISBN 978-0-521-51366-1, CA $145.95 Hardback; ISBN 978-0-521-73025-9, CA $65.95 Paperback) Reviewed by SUSAN O 'NEILL DOI: 10.1037/a0025504 Over a decade has passed since Sternberg edited the Handbook of Creativity for Cambridge University Press. In the intervening years, Kaufman and Sternberg tell us that more than 10,000 publications have been devoted to the topic of creativity. In our modern world, manifestations of have become practically synonymous with what it means to reach our human potential. Today, companies such as Research In Motion, the creators of the Blackberry Smartphone, are almost as likely to hire graduates from the liberal arts and humanities as they are from science and technology. Creativity has become a valued resource. And yet, as Kaufman and Sternberg point out in this volume, even after six decades of research, definitions of remain elusive. Creativity research continues to be the subject of much debate. Still, the chapters in this volume demonstrate that progress is being made with an increasing convergence of components, contexts, and complexity. handbook is informative for students and newcomers to the field, as well as for those looking for up-to-date reviews of major theories and applications of research. A quick scan of the contents reveals an impressive array of topics by esteemed authors. book is divided into three main sections: 1) basic concepts, 2) diverse perspectives on creativity, and 3) contemporary debates. sections relate to three main questions: 1) can we define and measure this complex construct? 2) can we make use of its potential in a variety of areas and contexts? 3) can we recognise and negotiate the constraints on creativity? Section 1 presents an introduction to that examines historical contributions to research, theories of creativity, assessments of creativity, and the roles of in society. Aspects of have long been known as the P' s of creativity: person (or personality), process, product, and place. More recent conceptualisations have added persuasion, because creative people change the way other people think, and potential, which is the actualization of personality and place in combination with attitudes and values. According to Seana Moran in Chapter 4 The Roles of Creativity in Society, it is the function and purpose of that has become more important than traits or positions. I found her chapter compelling as she described how Internet communities provide people with opportunities for creativity-as-expression as a way of coping with the challenges of living in today's world. She argues, creativity results from a community, which is similar to participatory cultures that both inspire and support young people's creative engagement in digital media. Participatory cultures foster creative engagement by providing relatively low barriers to artistic expression, strong support for creating and sharing one's creations, informal mentorship, and a sense of social connection. I believe that these online communities offer a rich area for future research. Section 2 offers a broad selection of topics that include key perspectives on such as cognitive, developmental, educational, cross-cultural, and evolutionary approaches. As a music psychologist, I was particularly drawn to Paul Locher' s Chapter 7 entitled, How Does a Visual Artist Create an Artwork? Reading through the real-life case studies of the art-making process, I was reminded of past research involving protocol analysis and similar approaches that explored the process composers engage in while composing a piece of music. Creative activity is not only a byproduct of being involved in a creative process; it can act as a catalyst for moving through blocks and blind alleys in the creative process. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.039 |
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".