Understanding the Differences in an AI-Based Creativity Support Tool Between Creativity Types in Fashion Design
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the perspective on creativity shifts to “how it is expressed,” research has aimed to categorize it by problem-solving style. Since harnessing individual creative traits can positively impact creative performance, there has been an emphasis on designing computer systems that are tailored to personal problem-solving behaviors. AI-CST has opened up the potential to facilitate such customization. In this work, we consider two types of creativity—adaptors and innovators—based on problem-solving styles, and investigate AI-CST designs that both types could flexibly use according to the fashion design process. We identified two main AI-CST functions—determining design direction and receiving design inspiration—of the fashion design process, and developed CoCoStyle to map these functions. Through a user study with 30 fashion professionals (15 adaptors and 15 innovators), we found significant differences between the two groups from survey responses, system usage logs, and interviews. Based on the results, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of AI and AI-CST where creativity is essential.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it