MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Artistic Development

2015· other· en· W2914064915 on OpenAlexaff
Constance Milbrath, Gary E. McPherson, Margaret S. Osborne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsLearning PartnershipUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsSociocultural evolutionVisual artsPaintingSection (typography)PsychologyVisual arts educationArtAestheticsSociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Archaeological evidence indicates that modern humans have been making music, portable art, and painting the walls of caves for at least the last 35,000 years. Through the activities of drawing and song these two art forms are also the first in which young children take an active part. In this chapter, we review what is known about children's artistic development in the visual arts and music, focusing on the historical and theoretical grounding of artistic development, the psychological and physical attributes of the developing child that play a role in children's artistry, and the sociocultural contexts in which child art and development occurs. The chapter is divided into two major sections, one on the visual arts and a second on music. Each section begins by describing the known inceptions of the art form and the historical and contemporary approaches to children's development in these arts, followed by a review of research considering children's developmental achievements and underlying competencies in the artistic domain. Studies of atypically developing children and inquiries into children's understanding and aesthetic experience of the art form are also presented. A discussion of cultural differences in artistic practice and the influences these different practices have on children's artistic outcomes concludes each major section.

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 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1230.019

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207