MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Creative Problem Solving Style and Individuals' Advice Network Formation and Creative Performance

2013· article· en· W2059244130 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicHealthcare Education and Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvice (programming)Style (visual arts)Creative problem-solvingPsychologyLife styleSocial psychologyComputer scienceApplied psychologyCreativityVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To increase understanding of the relationship between creative problem solving and social networks in organizations, creativity is discussed as a sequential four stage cognitive process and an argument is made that an individual’s degree of preference for each stage, that is, his or her creative process (CPS) style, is an important antecedent to that person’s formation of an advice partner network. One’s CPS style impacts his or her cognitive representation of their task environment and therefore what he or she considers the relevant problem space. How creative process style impacts both the number of weak ties in one’s advice network and the selections of strong tie network advice partners and how both contribute to one’s creative performance are modeled. Social network ties are conceptualized as providing two important resources for creative problem solving performance: content information and process expertise. Testable propositions, possible avenues for future research, and implications for leaders and managers are provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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