MuseScorer: Idea Originality Scoring At Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An objective, face-valid method for scoring idea originality is to measure each idea's statistical infrequency within a population -- an approach long used in creativity research. Yet, computing these frequencies requires manually bucketing idea rephrasings, a process that is subjective, labor-intensive, error-prone, and brittle at scale. We introduce MuseScorer, a fully automated, psychometrically validated system for frequency-based originality scoring. MuseScorer integrates a Large Language Model (LLM) with externally orchestrated retrieval: given a new idea, it retrieves semantically similar prior idea-buckets and zero-shot prompts the LLM to judge whether the idea fits an existing bucket or forms a new one. These buckets enable frequency-based originality scoring without human annotation. Across five datasets N_{participants}=1143, n_{ideas}=16,294), MuseScorer matches human annotators in idea clustering structure (AMI = 0.59) and participant-level scoring (r = 0.89), while demonstrating strong convergent and external validity. The system enables scalable, intent-sensitive, and human-aligned originality assessment for creativity research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".