Novel Information Discovery and Collaborative Filtering to Support Group Creativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teams that innovate encounter challenges in divergent and convergent thinking processes related to the need to: 1) leverage diverse internal and external knowledge, and 2) produce something that is both novel and valuable. Integrating the extant literature, we describe these challenges and propose a new approach to solving issues related to divergent and convergent thinking in groups in an innovation context. Specifically, we design group processes to support divergent and convergent thinking, including the use of several information technology (IT) tools to support them: 1) a novel-information discovery tool to foster computer-supported divergent thinking and sensemaking, and 2) a collaborative-filtering tool to foster computer-supported convergent thinking and sensegiving. Findings indicate that the novel-information discovery tool increases efficiency and effectiveness in the divergent thinking process and that the collaborative-filtering tool supports convergent thinking by focusing the group's attention on ideas that might otherwise be neglected. Combining these two IT tools with group processes for divergent and convergent thinking has important implications for both research and practice.
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 | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".