MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385516549 · doi:10.55482/jcim.2023.33540

‘Ideactionaries’: Those Who Imagine Anything and Create the Impossible

2023· article· en· W4385516549 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Piero Formica

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative International Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanismIntuitionEmpathyPoetryConstructiveAction (physics)SociologyAestheticsEpistemologyPsychologyLawSocial psychologyArtComputer sciencePolitical scienceLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to make the reader reflect on the transition from working to ideating. Working leads people to forget themselves and bury their heads in the sand, wrote the humanist Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) in 1928. In 1936, the writer and poet Cesare Pavese (1908-1950) advised in his collection of poems Lavorare stanca (Hard Labor) to take a closer look at the representations of men at work. Huxley and Pavese have led us forward to when ideactionaries will succeed workers. These translate ideas into action, devising revolutionary ways of designing and operating to deliver products and services and seeing the world. Theirs is meant to be a liveable, collective, co-creative (they transfer thoughts from one mind to another), constructive, transdisciplinary human experience. It must enrich the culture of intuition and imagination, of empathy towards society and the planet. It must educate young people to be guided by the good and to incorporate communication into action through vision, design of lived experience, mental models and meaningful metaphors.It is up to scholars to take charge of this vision, even critically, so that the new generations can attend classrooms and research workshops modelled as a Renaissance Bottega (workshop). There, pupils were co-creators rather than mere executors of tasks assigned from above and generators of cognitive conflicts that do much to abrogate entrenched rules.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative International ManagementSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207