MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050259418 · doi:10.2307/3069349

INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY AND GROUP ABILITY TO UTILIZE INDIVIDUAL CREATIVE RESOURCES: A MULTILEVEL MODEL.

2002· article· en· W2050259418 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Taggar

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityGroup (periodic table)PsychologyOrganizational behaviorMultilevel modelKnowledge managementSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of 94 groups on 13 different open-ended tasks was studied. At the individual-team-member level, domain knowledge and performance-relevant behavioral measures of the three components of Amabile's (1983, 1996) theory of individual creativity related in predicted ways to individual differences. Support was found for new “cross-level” processes, labeled “team creativity-relevant processes.” At the group level, these processes moderated the relationship between aggregated individual creativity and group creativity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations785
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management JournalSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207