Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovations do not emerge in isolation but are at least to some extent recombinations of previously existing building blocks. In this paper, we will build on the recombination processes feature set broadening and deepening to show how individuals innovate with IT. In our understanding, the out-comes of innovative use can be performative (improving existing task performance) or creative (leading to new deliverables). We build on a longitudinal case of stresstracking initially designed to improve meditation, but ultimately increasing work productivity by using the meditation tool in an innovative way. Using a theoretically grounded analysis framework, we were able to derive eight propositions on the attainment of performative and creative outcome of innovative IT use. We postulate that innovation only occurs through repeating cycles of recombination processes. Particularly, we propose that it is instrumental to run through a phase that does not benefit any task-related outcomes to trigger true creative outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".