Cited by 208Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceTopic ModelingDesign Education and Practice

Beyond semantic distance: Automated scoring of divergent thinking greatly improves with large language models

Organisciak, Peter, Acar, Selcuk, Dumas, Denis, Berthiaume, Kelly·2023·Thinking Skills and Creativity

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101356

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Originality of each AUT idea was measured with an existing fine-tuned GPT-3 classifier.

    “We measure the originality of each AUT idea with an existing fine-tuned GPT-3 classifier [44].”
  • The five objects (tire, pants, shoe, table, bottle) were chosen because the originality scoring measure had the highest correlation with human judgements for these five objects.

    “We chose these five particular objects as the originality scoring measure had the highest correlation with human judgements for these five objects [44].”
  • The fine-tuned GPT-3 classifier achieved an r = 0.81 overall correlation with human judgments.

    “The model was fine-tuned with human judgments of AUT originality (where human raters judged, on a scale of 1 to 5, the originality of an idea given the object) and achieved an 𝑟 = 0.81 overall correlation with human judgments.”
  • The Alternate Uses Task (AUT) is an established measurement for divergent thinking, which possesses a validated and fully automated evaluation pipeline.

    “we employ the Alternate Uses Task (AUT; Organisciak et al. (2023)), an established measurement for divergent (as in free-associative) thinking, which possesses a validated and fully automated evaluation pipeline (Organisciak et al., 2025).”

    From Within-Model vs Between-Prompt Variability in Large Language Models for Creative Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Organisciak et al., 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Organisciak, P., Acar, S., Dumas, D., & Berthiaume, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Denver (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of North Texas (US)
Corresponding author
Organisciak, Peter
Venue
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
49
Pages
101356
ISSN
1871-1871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4381487157
Cited by
202
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 1
FWCI
52.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Thinking Skills and Creativity (publishedVersion)
Funders
Institute of Education Sciences (305A200199)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
Keywords
divergent thinking, automated grading, alternative uses task, large language models, creativity assessment, semantic distance, fine-tuning, transfer learning, few-shot prompting, zero-shot prompting, human judgment correlation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review