Developing creative ecologies in schools: Assessing creativity in schools
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creativity has a significant role to play in how educational praxis evolves to meet the demands of future workforces and their lifelong learning. There now exists an abundance of discourse activity pertaining to creativity in education that stress nurturing it as an essential yet complex and multifaceted aspect of education. The need to recalibrate creativity in education beyond simplistic notions of accommodating creative industries and domain-centred thinking is stimulated by more holistic and ecologically responsible and responsive organisational and pedagogical practices. This article details findings from a three-year international study of creativity in Australian, Singaporean, American and Canadian secondary schools. A Whole School Creativity Audit that considers school policies, teacher pedagogies, the nurturing of student and teacher practices and processes for creativity, school environments and local/global creative partnerships is posited. Whole-school engagement in cultivating united, interconnected understandings and practicalities, and interdisciplinarity that fosters ‘wise creativity’ as a holistic ecological approach in schools is identified as a crucial component of a modern education.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it