Creative teamwork in quick projects development QPD, 24 hours of innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we are interested in the analysis of the creative activity of charrettes of innovation in product design. The charettes are “an intensive, concentrated and deadline oriented group confrontation and discussion technique ”[1]. We consider that our research could clarify four discussion topics regarding creative teamwork in charrettes in the particular context of 24h charettes duration: a) team building and the idea development into the 24h, b) an analysis of the issues presented in the innovative projects and the response of the team, c) the use of time in work sessions and d) the role of the leader in the team creative performance. These answers are important for the planning of teamwork in the QPD activities of technological projects. This empirical study was carried out within the context of the Fourth Edition of the 24 Hours (24H) of Innovation international competition, organized by the Ecole Superieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancees (ESTIA, France), with the participation of almost 250 university students coming from 25 different universities and in partnership with more than 30 industrial enterprises and with Ecole de Technologie Superieure (ETS, Canada) as a partner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".