MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313131918 · doi:10.7202/1094135ar

Daoist Creativity through Interconnectedness and Relational Dynamics in Pedagogy

2022· article· en· W4313131918 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hongyu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Inquiry in Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityEpistemologySociologyHarmony (color)Creativity techniqueScholarshipPedagogyPsychologySocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reconceptualizing the notion of creativity is imperative for addressing today’s multilayered social, ecological, and educational crises. This paper draws upon the Daoist philosophy of creativity, which connects rather than separates, to elaborate on the creative relational dynamics of a Daoist pedagogy. First, Western conceptions of creativity are briefly discussed to situate Daoist creativity relative to other scholarship. This discussion is followed by exploring three important aspects of Daoist creativity through interconnectedness: the self-creative process of the cosmos, the co-creativity of human creativity in spontaneity, and the virtuous pursuit of creative harmony. Conceptualizing Daoist creativity in these three aspects lays the foundation for the formulations of contemporary Daoist pedagogical dynamics. First, relational ontology underlies non-dualistic knowing and creative learning, which is infused with meditative sensitivity and incorporates aesthetic modes of thinking and associative thinking across boundaries. Second, creative personhood through integrating opposites and becoming attuned to the creative energy of life requires the personal cultivation of both the instructor and students while transforming teacher–student relationships. Third, a Daoist pedagogy of harmonizing creative tensions is envisioned through making connections across difference, diversifying texts, enacting pedagogical attunement, and harmonizing different modes of knowing and being.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Inquiry in EducationSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207