MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901504362 · doi:10.1002/arcp.1044

Creativity: Past, present, and future

2018· article· en· W2901504362 on OpenAlex
Ravi Mehta, Darren W. Dahl

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

VenueConsumer Psychology Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsBC Innovation CouncilUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyConstruct (python library)CognitionPersonalityCreativity techniqueMysticismPower (physics)Social psychologySociologyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Our understanding of creativity has come a long way from when it was considered to be a mystical power. Indeed, creativity has grown into a defined cognitive process that can be influenced by a diverse range of internal and external factors. This article begins with a brief discussion of the history of creativity as a psychological construct and then outlines more recent work in the area, particularly focusing on how our understanding of creativity has been expanded in the last decade. In doing so, we explicate four defining factors that have been shown to play a critical role in shaping consumer creativity: cognitive ability, motivation, social‐personality, and environment. The article concludes with a discussion of three topics that we believe hold promise for future research efforts in the area.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.370 · 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