MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905049407 · doi:10.7202/1053685ar

The Life of Ideas during a Community-Based Innovation Contest

2018· article· en· W2905049407 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONTESTCreativityFocus (optics)SociologyRemainderTrack (disk drive)EpistemologyMathematics educationPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyPolitical scienceMathematicsPhilosophyArithmeticLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies focus on how ideas circulate during community-based innovation contests. This research studies a contest employing two creativity methods: the hybrid and the speedstorming. Participants initially ideated individually, then ideated in pairs, and finally selected ideas for development. A novel research method that permits to track the “life” of ideas is settled. We found that final ideas are moderately original in comparison to the remainder of ideas submitted. We also found that participants did not reveal their most original ideas. Finally, we show that the final ideas were not co-created by the participants but came from solitary individuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.255 · 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