Virtual World Construction and The Relationship to Creativity in Art Education / Construction de mondes virtuels et lien avec la créativité en éducation artistique
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
Abstract: This paper presents findings from a participatory observational case study with a perspective on creativity. In this research, high school students from Vancouver, Canada, worked in the virtual world of VCER (Virtual Commons for Education and Research), an Open Simulator, to create an ecosystem. The main research question of this study was: How can the virtual world creation process foster student creativity? The sub-questions were 1. How do students express their creativity through the virtual world creation process? And 2. What can teachers do to further student creativity?Keywords: Virtual worlds; Creativity; Technology. Résumé : Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude d’observation participative axée sur la créativité. Des étudiants du secondaire, basés à Vancouver au Canada, ont exploité le monde virtuel du VCER (Virtual Commons for Education and Research) pour créer un écosystème. Cette étude posait essentiellement la question suivante : en quoi la création de mondes virtuels favorise-t-elle la créativité chez les étudiants ? Les questions subséquentes étaient les suivantes : 1. Comment les étudiants expriment-ils leur créativité par la construction de mondes virtuels ? et 2. Que peuvent faire les enseignants pour promouvoir la créativité des étudiants ?Mots-clés : mondes virtuels, créativité, technologie.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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