Developing design concepts in a cloud computing environment: creative interactions and brainstorming modalities
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
This article presents the key components required to properly understand remote creative interactions associated with three collective design stages: co-definition; the ideas co-production; and the co-evaluation in the formulation of a design concept. We compare five brainstorming modalities: traditional brainstorming—graphical interaction, reverse brainstorming, brainwriting and brainsketching—adopted by six delocalised teams working through a cloud computing environment. We analyse: co-authoring production; the ratio of ideas production according to task-goal; and the variation of brainstorming modalities. Our results show that designers work on brainstorming modalities according to the task-goal assigned, and we see that task content and the verbal and graphical communicative modes are supported by the proposed computational environment; as well as all brainstorming modalities. Because co-authoring or collective sketching are hardly possible without verbal communication support in graphical production, we propose the use of these new cloud computing functionalities to enhance the distributed design work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it