MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777728670

Making Our Schools More Creative: Korea's Efforts and Challenges.

2017· article· en· W2777728670 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Systems and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityGovernment (linguistics)CurriculumFlexibility (engineering)Public relationsPolitical sciencePedagogyPsychologySociologyMathematics educationManagementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Korean government has been interested in developing creativity in education and has attempted to increase the creativity of schools since the mid-1990s. This study aims to critically review the policy efforts of the Korean government for the last twenty years. To achieve this aim, the study analyzes government documents and related department website materials since mid-1990s when creativity emerged as a key agenda in Korean education policy. The results reveal that the government’s endeavors for achieving creativity include increasing flexibility in the national curriculum, developing teachers’ creativity by improving teacher education, and establishing supporting systems such as online information websites and teaching and learning materials. However, these efforts have been inadequate for an authentic transformation of schools. This study recommends that the government should emphasize creativity education through subject matter, support teacher-driven development of teaching materials, define student creativity as an ultimate goal of teacher creativity, and cultivate a co-operative and communicative school culture.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.288 · 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