Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discipline of economics has traditionally refused to study the behavior and achievements of specific individuals.Yet creativity -a primary source of the technological change that drives economic growth -is largely the domain of extraordinary individuals or small groups.For the first time in the history of the discipline, within the last decade economists have begun to study how these extraordinary individuals make their discoveries, and the results have been dramatic.Research done to date has demonstrated that artistic innovators can usefully be divided into two types.Experimental innovators seek to record their perceptions.They proceed tentatively, by trial and error, building their skills gradually, and making their greatest contributions late in their lives.In contrast, conceptual innovators use their art to express ideas and emotions.The precision of their goals allows them to plan their work, and execute it decisively.Their most radical new ideas, and consequently their greatest innovations, occur early in their careers.The research that has established these patterns has several central components.A key element is the systematic measurement of an artist's creativity over the course of the life cycle: this not only establishes when the artist made his greatest contribution, but also provides an objective identification of his greatest innovation.This facilitates another key element of the research, the categorization of the artist as experimental or conceptual.This effectively depends on whether the artist works inductively, building his contribution incrementally from observation, or deductively, creating his innovation as a consequence of a new idea.These patterns have been established empirically, by a large number of studies of important practitioners of a wide range of arts.It is now time to extend economic research on creativity, by applying this analysis to other intellectual domains.It is important to recognize that economists' failure to study individuals has prevented them from understanding the sources of the contributions of the most productive people in our society.Breaking this disciplinary taboo may now allow us not only to understand, but perhaps also to increase, the creativity of these remarkable individuals, and to help others to follow them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".