Bibliographic record
Abstract
We set out to bring into being a Creative Methods issue to inform and support researchers, practitioners, educators, and those they serve. We did so with what William Blake called “a firm persuasion” (Whyte, 2001, p. 3), and in the process of expanding the vidence-base for creative methods in guidance and counselling we are affirmed that this is both essential and rewarding. \n \nIn our call for papers, we identified a number of reasons that creative methods are essential to guidance and counselling; for instance, they reintroduce playfulness, which is an often-undervalued capacity of humans that can help create space to respond to serious questions. Creative methods also allow us to be less resistant to so-called “negative” feelings and they let us break rank with the rational linear thinking, planning, efficiency and goal-orientation that has dominated policy and some practice discourses. In essence, this has supressed the creative, sensory and feeling side of human needs and behaviours. Indeed a common theme that appeared in all the articles is the importance of making room for the affective, before connecting that with more cognitive articulations. \n \n“This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in "British Journal of Guidance and Counselling" on 05/14/16, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2018.1442917. \n \nLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/reinekke-lengelle-phd-767a4322/
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".