3. The Ethics of Emergent Creativity: Can We Move Beyond Writing as Human Enterprise, Commodity and Innovation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution explores whether we can foreground a different vision of creativity and from there a reconfigured ethics of writing that is less focused on objects, outcomes, and ownership and more on messy, processual and relational notions of creativity as becoming. It argues from a feminist new materialist position that the current discourse on creativity is a material expression of creativity rather than merely its representation, and shows how this discourse has been defining, classifying, constructing, and situating creativity within a neoliberal framework of ‘creative industries’. Opening up from this discourse and the way we perform it through our writing practices might therefore enable us to explore extended relationalities of creativity, open-ended publishing processes, and a feminist ethics of care and responsibility. Alongside this reconfigured discourse this contribution will explore various entangled writing and publishing practices, from ‘uncreative writing’, to piracy and radical open access publishing in academia. How are these experimental, hybrid and posthuman writing practices intervening in the established discourse on creativity, and how can we through them start to performatively explore a new discourse and reconfigure the relationships that underlie our writing processes?
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".