KURUMLARDA YARATICILIK ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA - A STUDY ON CREATIVITY IN ORGANIZATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Özet Günümüzde bilgiye kolay ulaşılmakla birlikte önemli olan, bilgiler arasında yeni bağlantılar kurmaktır. Bu yaratıcılığın en temel tanımını oluşturmaktadır. Yaratıcılık herkes tarafından sergilenemese dahi, yapılan araştırmalar herkesin yaratıcılığını geliştirebileceğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada yaratıcılık tanımından başlanarak, bireysel ve kurumsal yaratıcılığı etkileyen tüm faktörler üzerinde durulmuştur ve yaratıcılığı geliştiren teknikler detaylı olarak incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın konusunu kurumlarda yaratıcılığın nasıl uygulandığı ve teşvik edildiği oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın araştırma evrenini Capital Dergisi tarafından 2009 yılında belirlenen Türkiye’nin en inovatif yirmi şirketi oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada kurumların yaratıcılık adına ne yaptıkları, neyi teşvik ettikleri ve daha başka nelerin yapılabileceğine ilişkin veriler sunularak tartışılmıştır. Abstract Nowadays, it’s easy to access information, nonetheless the important part is to establish new connections between the information. This is the most basic definition of the creativity. In this study, the factors which affect individual and organizational creativity to be examined starting from the definition of the creativity and techniques which enhance individual and group creativity to be examined in detail. Finally, a research takes place expressing how creativity is implemented and promoted in the organizations. The research enviroment in this study is composed by Turkey’s most innovative twenty companies determined by Capital magazine in 2009. In this study, what the organizations do, promote and what else can be done in the name of creativity to be discussed by presenting related data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".