Définir la créativité comme un processus d’élaboration de sens en éducation
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
While today's societies are exposed to strong competition, due to the importance placed on technological and human innovation in all economic sectors, creativity, a key skill of the 21st century, is sought after by employers (De Backer & al., 2012; Lubart & al., 2015; Mnisri & Nagati, 2012; Pantaleo, 2019; Romero, Lille & Patiño, 2017; Upitis, 2014). Institutional documents acknowledge its transversal value in student development (MEQ, 2006). Despite this, in education, defining, teaching and evaluating this skill can become complex for teachers (Alter & al., 2009; De Backer & al., 2012; Pantaleo, 2019), like in the field of arts where the created object takes a decisive, even total, place in the evaluation of the student's abilities, the latter not always being the witness of learning (Boyd & Cutcher, 2015; Geist & Hohn, 2009; Rosenfeld, 2014). It is proposed to pay particular attention to the creative process and its contribution to transversal skills, in order to describe creativity as meaning meaking in education. This sociocultural perspective makes it possible to consider the learning process of the student when he creates, rather than taking into account only his result. The article is divided into four parts: a historical definition of creativity in research, a description of the concept in the field of Quebec education, a conceptual reflection on the creative process, then the definition of creativity as a process of meaning making, to express it as a fundamentally sociocultural activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it