MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308042870 · doi:10.1002/jocb.571

The Embodied Journey of an Idea: An Exploration of Movement Creativity in Circus Arts

2022· article· en· W4308042870 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique Richard, Vlad Petre Glăveanu, Patrice Aubertin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Creative Behavior · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsNational Circus School
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionCreativityNarrativeReflexivityImprovisationConceptualizationSociologyThe artsAffordanceAestheticsPsychologyCognitive scienceEpistemologyVisual artsCognitive psychologySocial psychologyArtSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Knowledge about embodied creativity is in its infancy. In circus arts, performers are nowadays ‘owning’ their creativity making this performance domain fruitful to study embodied creativity. Building on socio‐cultural creativity perspectives and radical embodied cognitive sciences, the current study aimed at exploring movement creativity by tracking the journey of embodied ideas in a Circus School. Specifically, this research questioned how the interactions between actors, audiences, affordances, and actions support the emergence and evolution of movement ideas. A narrative ethnographic research design, gathering process observations in situ , was used to scrutinize the movement ideas generated by student‐artists, teachers, and artistic advisors over a 4‐month period. Reflexive thematic analysis led to the design of an exhaustive mapping which illustrates the key findings. Namely, the journey of an embodied idea is influenced by stimulating spaces and collaborative socio‐cultural environment which ignite the actors' desire to create. This desire, in turn, unfolds into multiple ideational pathways paved with research strategies (e.g., improvisation, constraints, variability) and emotions (i.e., pleasant and unpleasant). Embodied ideas then go through an assessment process leading (or not) to its growth. Results are discussed in light of embodied, pedagogical, and emotional considerations offering an alternative to the conceptualization of idea.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Creative BehaviorSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207