Addressing the imagination gap through STEAMM+D and indigenous knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alex Manu describes an “imagination gap,” that is, “the gap between current capability and future possibility” [Manu A (2006) The Imagination Challenge: Strategic Foresight and Innovation in the Global Economy ]. Merriam-Webster defines imagination as “the act of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality”; imagination combines “creative ability” and “resourcefulness” [Merriam-Webster (2018) Imagination. Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online . Available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imagination ]. This paper considers two interdisciplinary fields in which distinct approaches have sought a solution to the “imagination gap” and have resulted in new research questions, methods, outcomes, and even philosophies. These are science, technology, engineering, arts, math, medicine, and design (STEAMM+D) and Indigenous research that establishes questions and methods from an integrated interdisciplinary worldview and the individual’s responsibilities toward community and land. By intertwining these approaches, it is possible for science and society to apply creative problem solving in addressing complex challenges, thereby fostering sustainable innovation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".