Social and Spatial Precursors to Innovation: The Diversity Advantage of the Creative Fringe
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
Innovation spaces and hubs are increasing in numbers internationally. Entrepreneurs and start-up founders who use these spaces and hubs are often unaware of being inside an echo chamber, i.e. a filter bubble they share with only like-minded people who have similar ideas and approaches to innovation. Digital technologies that use algorithms can aggravate these echo chambers by filtering towards improved personalised experience and preferences. Yet, social inclusion fosters diverse ideas and creativity, hence, has a positive impact on innovation. We studied the social navigation patterns of entrepreneurs and start-up founders, and their awareness and opinion about homogeneity in innovation spaces. This data informed the design of a tool to escape their echo chambers. The tool gives its users the opportunity to discover networks and innovation spaces that are at the creative fringe, that is, marginalised from mainstream spaces and hubs for creativity and innovation. Our findings show that users of innovation spaces often find themselves surrounded by like-minded people. Further, our study participants welcomed the ability to identify fringe spaces in order to discover and access more diverse people and ideas. Our approach seeks to unlock the diversity advantage of the creative fringe for the purpose of creativity and innovation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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