MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177369388 · doi:10.1145/3450741.3466629

How a Creative Product Evolves: A Structural Analysis of Creative Trajectories in Graphic Design

2021· article· en· W3177369388 on OpenAlex
Steven Brown, Zoe Lazar-Kurz

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCreativity and Cognition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrainstormingSketchCreativityFocus (optics)Computer scienceCreative workProduct designSession (web analytics)Product (mathematics)IdeationGraphic designNew product developmentTrajectoryOrder (exchange)Creative problem-solvingWork (physics)Creative briefHuman–computer interactionMultimediaPsychologyEngineeringCognitive scienceVisual artsArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebMarketingMathematicsMechanical engineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The psychology of creativity has traditionally had a narrow focus on idea generation alone, even though creative work requires extensive processes of exploration of an initial idea in order to develop it into a final product. In the present study, we attempt to characterize the evolutionary trajectory of design work from inception to final product by analyzing the full progression of structural changes occurring over the course of a creative project. Graphic design students were tasked with brainstorming ideas for a business advertisement during an initial session, and then developing one of these ideas into a final advertisement across 6 daily sessions of exploration. Because this study is ongoing, we present a case study of a single designer's progression and the creative dynamics of its unfolding from initial sketch to final product.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.279 · 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