Symposium: Understanding the Connections Among Creativity, Spirituality and Wholeness, and their Significance for Teaching, Learning and Living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium will initiate an inquiry into the relationship that exists, can exist and should exist between creativity and spirituality, and the significance of looking at creativity and spirituality from holistic perspectives. The panelists will explore these relationships in light of their own scholarly research and artistic and teaching practices, and they will underscore the significance of understanding these relationships for teaching, learning and living. The key questions that the panelists will explore in this symposium include the following: • How are creativity, spirituality and wholeness connected? • What is the significance of exploring and understanding these notions in relation to each other? For instance, how does seeing creativity as linked with spirituality and wholeness result in a more fulsome understanding of creativity? • How might understanding the interconnections between creativity, spirituality and wholeness impact how we teach, learn and live? • How may we introduce ourselves and our students to the inter-relatedness of creativity, spirituality and a notion of wholeness? Why is doing so important?
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".