Interdisciplinary Methods in Computational Creativity: How Human Variables Shape Human-Inspired AI Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word creativity originally described a concept from human psychology, but in the realm of computational creativity (CC), it has become much more. The question of what creativity means when it is part of a computational system might be considered core to CC. Pinning down the meaning of creativity, and concepts like it, becomes salient when researchers port concepts from human psychology to computation, a widespread practice extending beyond CC into artificial intelligence (AI). Yet, the human processes shaping human-inspired computational systems have been little investigated. In this paper, we question which human literatures (social sciences, psychology, neuroscience) enter AI scholarship and how they are translated at the port of entry. This study is based on 22 in-depth, semi-structured interviews, primarily with human-inspired AI researchers, half of whom focus on creativity as a major research area. This paper focuses on findings most relevant to CC. We suggest that which human literature enters AI bears greater scrutiny because ideas may become disconnected from context in their home discipline. Accordingly, we recommend that CC researchers document the decisions and context of their practices, particularly those practices formalizing human concepts for machines. Publishing reflexive commentary on human elements in CC and AI would provide a useful record and permit greater dialogue with other disciplines.
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 | 0.031 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".