Collective intelligence as collective information processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collective intelligence research spans multiple disciplines and focuses on a broad range of collective behaviors, including group problem-solving, flocking in social animals, and the formation of social knowledge. It is not apparent what these different forms of collective intelligence have in common, apart from being instances of collective behavior. In this paper, we develop a framework that enables us to better classify different forms of collectively intelligent behavior in relation to one another based on the information processing mechanisms involved. We argue that these behaviors share a common foundation, which we call collective information processing, or CIP. CIP involves two key mechanisms: (1) individual processing of group information and (2) group processing, or group-level sensitivity to the arrangement of individual information. We operationalize the CIP framework to analyze different forms of collective intelligence, both classifying them in relation to one another and in alignment with generalized quantifiable measures of information processing. Our account of collective intelligence as CIP offers a novel framework for identifying and classifying forms of collective intelligence across a wide range of disciplinary contexts. This framework is meant to unify and subsume, rather than simply challenge, existing attempts to define collective intelligence. • Collective intelligence (CI) inquiry lacks a multidisciplinary, unifying framework. • We propose that Collective Information Processing (CIP) underlies CI. • CIP distinguishes two forms of individual- and group-level processing. • CIP enables identification and classification of phenomena labeled as CI. • CIP advances debates about agency and causation within CI studies.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".