Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic caused a huge displacement for people globally. This displacement resulted in a shift in notions of personal reality and affective relationships. Creativity is a sensitive process that is impacted by one’s physical, social, and cultural reality. In this paper, I understand creativity to encompass the process, experience, and feelings associated with the creation of new products and ideas, that are both novel and appropriate to a given situation or time-period (Amabile et al. 2005). This ethnography explores the impact of the pandemic on the creative processes of six Toronto-based artists. I explore the effects of decreased collaboration, decreased social interaction, and greater isolation, on the motivation for art creation, the content of art created and the overall affectual states of the artists. I consider how these changes were linked to the different layers of Hennessey and Amabile (2010)’s structural model of creativity and I posit why artists had different creative outcomes. Preference for alone time when creating art versus creating through collaboration impacted people’s motivation for creativity during COVID-19 and the subsequent amount of art created. Preference for alone time was also linked to the affective results of different artists during the COVID-19 pandemic—those who previously collaborated during their artistic process suffered more than those who mostly created in solitude. The mediums different artists engaged with also impacted motivation and their ability to continue creating.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".