MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952353054 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.08220

Creativity: Linchpin in the Quest for a Viable Theory of Cultural\n Evolution

2018· article· en· W2952353054 on OpenAlex
Liane Gabora

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCreativityDarwinismContext (archaeology)Darwin (ADL)Sociocultural evolutionEpistemologyProcess (computing)Cognitive scienceAdaptation (eye)PsychologyConceptual blendingSociologyCognitionComputer scienceSocial psychologyAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines the implications of neural-level accounts of insight, and\nmodels of the conceptual interactions that underlie creativity, for a theory of\ncultural evolution. Since elements of human culture exhibit cumulative,\nadaptive, open-ended change, it seems reasonable to view culture as an\nevolutionary process, one fueled by creativity. Associative memory models of\ncreativity and mathematical models of how concepts combine and transform\nthrough interaction with a context, support a view of creativity that is\nincompatible with a Darwinian (selectionist) framework for cultural evolution,\nbut compatible with a non-Darwinian (Self-Other Reorganization) framework. A\ntheory of cultural evolution in which creativity is centre stage could provide\nthe kind of integrative framework for the behavioral sciences that Darwin\nprovided for the life sciences.\n

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.149 · 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