The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring divergent thinking originality with human raters and text-mining models: A psychometric comparison of methods.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“we investigate originality primarily by means of semantic similarity, using a well-performing sentence embedding model [72] whose direct predecessors [70] have been found to agree well with human judgments of originality in creativity research [6, 26].”
From Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“a metric which has been found to agree well with human judgments of semantic similarity [6, 26].”
From Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open platform for computing semantic distance
Beaty, R. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01453-w · Cited by 341
“Regarding creativity, the five semantic spaces showed comparable but variable correlations with creativity ratings, with the highest correlations found for GloVe ( r = .61) and cbowukwac ( r = .55).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialAssociative thinking at the core of creativity
Beaty, R. E., & Kenett, Y. N. (2023) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.04.004 · Cited by 272
Hubert, K. F., Awa, K. N., & Zabelina, D. L. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-53303-w · Cited by 292
“For example, human intervention is necessary for inputting appropriate and relevant data to train the model and shape outputs to become more linguistically natural 16,17 .”
BackgroundMethodOrganisciak, P., Acar, S., Dumas, D., & Berthiaume, K. (2023) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101356 · Cited by 202
Self-citationNaming unrelated words predicts creativity
Olson, J. A., Nahas, J., Chmoulevitch, D., Cropper, S. J., & Webb, M. E. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2022340118 · Cited by 182
“Many of these computational methods can generate scores similar to human ratings, including on the Alternative Uses Task (11, 17, 26, 27).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Doherty, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Denver (US)
- Actors' Equity Association (US)
- Venue
- Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
- Published
- 2021-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 645-663
- ISSN
- 1931-3896 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-390X
- OpenAlex
- W3044750169
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12
- FWCI
- 14.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Denver
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Keywords
- divergent thinking, originality, human raters, psychometric comparison, creativity assessment
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
