MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389141119 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2023.071612

Research on the Cultivation of College Students' Innovation Ability

2023· article· en· W4389141119 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityExcellenceAtmosphere (unit)Engineering ethicsResource (disambiguation)Knowledge managementPsychologySociologyBusinessPedagogyPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The propensity for innovation has emerged as a crucial attribute of contemporary college students, attributable to the rapid societal progression and the ongoing economic development. The cultivation of college students' innovation ability not only helps them to stand out in their personal career development, but also promotes the progress and development of the society. Despite the challenges and barriers encountered in nurturing creativity among Chinese college students, the conventional educational system overly emphasizes the dissemination and retention of knowledge. Consequently, it overlooks the development of students' creative thinking and innovative abilities. In their quest for academic excellence, students are often compelled to follow a linear progression, which in turn, restricts their opportunities to engage in creative thinking, thereby impeding their full potential for innovation. To foster this creativity, it is crucial to integrate practical connections and projects without neglecting their significance. Many university classroom teaching is still based on theoretical knowledge, and lacks practical links related to practical problem solving[1].The paucity of practical experience and projects, coupled with the dearth of an innovation-oriented atmosphere, has rendered it challenging for college students to implement the knowledge they have acquired in practice, thereby impeding the cultivation of their innovation abilities. Creating a supportive environment for innovation is necessary. This includes resource allocation for innovative pursuits, proper planning of innovation-related activities, and cultivating a culture of creativity. Yet, challenges such as insufficient resources for innovation, inadequate innovation-related activities, and the development of an innovative atmosphere pose significant problems in enhancing the innovative abilities of college students[2].This study aims to investigate efficient methods of nurturing innovative capabilities in college students, propose effective training models and strategies, and examine and analyze the practices and methods used both locally and globally to foster innovative potential in college students, as well as the actual circumstances of Chinese college students, targeted training techniques and tactics are proposed to furnish theoretical direction and practical reference for augmenting college students' innovation capacity.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.438 · 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