Recognizability of Individual Creative Style Within and Across Domains:\n Preliminary Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is hypothesized that creativity arises from the self-mending capacity of\nan internal model of the world, or worldview. The uniquely honed worldview of a\ncreative individual results in a distinctive style that is recognizable within\nand across domains. It is further hypothesized that creativity is domaingeneral\nin the sense that there exist multiple avenues by which the distinctiveness of\none's worldview can be expressed. These hypotheses were tested using art\nstudents and creative writing students. Art students guessed significantly\nabove chance both which painting was done by which of five famous artists, and\nwhich artwork was done by which of their peers. Similarly, creative writing\nstudents guessed significantly above chance both which passage was written by\nwhich of five famous writers, and which passage was written by which of their\npeers. These findings support the hypothesis that creative style is\nrecognizable. Moreover, creative writing students guessed significantly above\nchance which of their peers produced particular works of art, supporting the\nhypothesis that creative style is recognizable not just within but across\ndomains.\n
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".