THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE “NON CREATIVE” IDENTITY \nHow prevailing stereotypes about creativity and creative people lead to personal, social and cultural outcomes that limit our individual and collective creative potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creativity has become a highly desirable commodity, and it can be argued that the challenges we face as a species will require a great deal more of it. Taking a social constructionist perspective, creativity is described as having a coherent and knowable cultural form within any particular society, although currently ignored. Further, the social construction of identity is reviewed, and creative identity is presented as a fundamental condition for maximizing individual, and in aggregate, societal creative potential. In light of new quantitative research stating that less than half of us believe we are creative; a multi-method qualitative study was conducted to better understand this outcome, and the personal, social and cultural factors that influence the construction of a “non- creative” identity the marginalized majority. New insights and explanatory frameworks are presented and leveraged in the design of organizational and cultural interventions that encourage the emergence of a more inclusive “Creativity Culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".