Interview: <scp>P</scp>aul <scp>P</scp>aulus on Group Creativity
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
P aul P aulus is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the Department of Psychology, University of T exas at A rlington. P aul P aulus's research interests revolve around Group Creativity: On the one hand, creative processes are often conceptualized as individual‐level phenomena. On the other hand, complex problems in innovation management often need the collaboration of various experts to create novel solutions. Interestingly, although common sense suggests that individuals are more creative in a group context, research indicates that this is oftentimes not the case. The question on how to structure creative processes in groups in such a way that groups can actually benefit from their creative potential is therefore crucial. Paul Paulus has spent much of his academic career addressing this intriguing question. He and his research team have discovered many factors that influence group creativity and have been able to demonstrate conditions under which group interaction enhances creativity. For the past eight years he has been working with a multidisciplinary team to better understand the cognitive, neural and social factors that underlie the group creative process ( P aulus et al., ). They are presently funded on a three year project to investigate innovation processes in networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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