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
Chapter 1 challenged you to explore the possibility of using generative AI to support your own creative process while being aware of the pros and cons of doing so. This chapter re-examines the origin stories of intelligent machines and the way that humans imagined a machine to be creative and intelligent. Understanding where the intelligent machine comes into play when it comes to your own creative process is a valuable undertaking. While this chapter does not provide an in-depth historical review of all the technologies that have supported human creativity, it can point to ones that are significant to the affordances and constraints that generative AI offer. Locating some of the many historical human inventions that have led to the creation of text-image generative AI, for example, will provide you with another perspective of how the simulation of human intelligence and behavior has come to support, not replace, human creativity. Creatives will benefit from understanding that generative AI is another technological tool arising from human imagination that can be used in their own creative process. Generative AI are compelling inventions as these seemingly intelligent machines become more like prototyping companions that have unique features creatives will find useful.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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