Étude de la littérature sur la créativité en sciences de l’éducation dans les pays francophones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le terme « créativité » est utilisé de façon très diversifiée dans le milieu professionnel, technologique, socio-économique ou encore dans le contexte scolaire. Dans une perspective exploratoire, une révision de la littérature scientifique francophone en sciences de l’éducation a permis d’identifier les champs de connaissances qui mobilisent ce concept. L’étude menée a porté sur une analyse descriptive ainsi qu’une analyse de contenu catégorielle. Les résultats de celles-ci nous ont permis de situer le contexte de la créativité et d’identifier cinq champs de connaissances : 1) enseignement et développement personnel, 2) résolution de problèmes et pensée informatique, 3) approche artistique, 4) formations et/ou programmes éducatifs, et 5) facteurs de développement de la créativité.
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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".