Viewing Digital Nature Scenes Not Sufficient to Enhance Verbal Creativity in Children
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
Some prior studies suggest that nature exposure can bolster creativity in adults and adolescents, but little is known about the effect of nature stimuli on children's creativity. We investigated the effect of exposure to static images of natural and urban scenery on verbal creativity in children using a between-subjects repeated measures design. Fifty-five children (ages 8–15 years; mean = 11.05) were randomly allocated to the urban or nature condition and completed two verbal creativity measures (alternative uses and similarities tasks) before and after viewing 100 urban/nature images. Twenty-four participants were tested in-person and, due to COVID-19, 31 were tested online. Independent samples t-tests indicated that participants tested online versus in-person did not differ on characterization variables (e.g., age, gender, verbal cognitive ability) or creativity measure scores, and thus, the groups were combined for subsequent analyses. Repeated-measures analysis of variance did not support the hypothesis that children in the nature condition would demonstrate more improvement in verbal creativity than those in the urban condition. These findings suggest that short exposures to nature scenery were not sufficient to enhance verbal creativity in children. This research is the first to examine the effect of brief nature exposure on verbal creativity in children and provides important directions for future research.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it