MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122281319 · doi:10.1145/1640233.1640255

Creativity factor evaluation

2009· article· en· W2122281319 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityFactor (programming language)Computer scienceProgramming languagePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new survey metric, the Creativity Support Index (CSI) that is designed to help researchers and designers evaluate the level of creativity support provided by various systems or interfaces. We initially employed a top-down literature-based approach to develop a beta version of the Creativity Support Index (Beta CSI). We discuss our usage of the Beta CSI in three different studies and what we learned from those deployments. We also present the results from an extensive creativity vocabulary study (n=300), which revealed a set of orthogonal creativity factors. This led to the current version of the CSI presented in this paper. Initial results from these formative evaluations suggest the value of this tool in assessing and comparing creativity support tools at points in time and longitudinally.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207