MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229997408 · doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.603111

Creative Teachers

2011· article· en· W4229997408 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueRoeper Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyInterviewPseudonymVariety (cybernetics)PedagogyQualitative researchMathematics educationSocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good teaching is creative teaching, yet there is little research focusing on creative teachers themselves. In this article we report a synthesis of 13 qualitative case studies and two quantitative studies of teachers who demonstrated everyday or local creativity in their work. Themes and categories were identified through constant comparison and inter-relationships among themes were explored. Four themes are described: personal characteristics, community, process, and outcomes. Teachers' creative process emerged from the interaction between their personal characteristics, including personal intelligences, motivation, and values, and the communities in which they worked and lived. This process resulted in a wide variety of outcomes. The findings suggest that cooperation between teachers and administrators is essential for teachers to succeed in creating positive change.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.256 · 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