Gubachelier: /* Bibtex */

2015-11-02T19:57:00Z

‎Bibtex

Gubachelier: /* Bibtex */

2015-10-30T21:01:15Z

‎Bibtex

Gubachelier: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Reference == Carolyn Lamb, Daniel G. Brown and Charles Clarke: Human Competence in Creativity Evaluation. In: [[Computational Creativity 2015 ICCC 2015]…“

2015-10-29T21:35:33Z

Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Reference == Carolyn Lamb, Daniel G. Brown and Charles Clarke: Human Competence in Creativity Evaluation. In: [[Computational Creativity 2015 ICCC 2015]…“

Neue Seite

== Reference ==
Carolyn Lamb, Daniel G. Brown and Charles Clarke: [[Human Competence in Creativity Evaluation]]. In: [[Computational Creativity 2015 ICCC 2015]], 102-109.

== DOI ==

== Abstract ==
We investigate the performance of non-expert judges in
using leading computational poetry evaluation metrics
to evaluate poetry written by humans. We find that regardless
of the model used, non-expert judges are very
poor at using metrics to evaluate creativity, even displaying
the reverse of the desired rating pattern, preferring
novice poetry to professional poetry. We discuss
likely reasons for this finding and the implications for
the evaluation of computational creativity. Researchers
using human judges should be aware that using a metric
or structured evaluation does not negate the need for
judge expertise.

== Extended Abstract ==

== Bibtex ==
@inproceedings{
author = {Lamb, Carolyn and Brown, Daniel G. and Clarke, Charles},
title = {Human Competence in Creativity Evaluation},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2015},
year = {2015},
month = {Jun},
location = {Park City, Utah, USA},
pages = {102-109},
url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/5_2Lamb.pdf},
url = {http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Human_Competence_in_Creativity_Evaluation},
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}

== Used References ==
Aguilar, W., and P´erez y P´erez, R. 2014. Criteria for evaluating
early creative behavior in computational agents. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational
Creativity, 284–287.

Amabile, T. 1983. In The social psychology of creativity,
37–64. Springer-Verlag New York.

Binsted, K.; Pain, H.; and Ritchie, G. 1997. Children’s evaluation
of computer-generated punning riddles. Pragmatics
& Cognition 5(2):305–354.

Boden, M. A. 1990. The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms.
Psychology Press.

Bown, O. 2014. Empirically grounding the evaluation of
creative systems: incorporating interaction design. In Proceedings
of the Fifth International Conference on Computational
Creativity.

Brown, D. 2009. Computational artistic creativity and its
evaluation. Number Dagstuhl Seminar 09291, 1–8.

Burns, K. 2006. Atoms of eve: A bayesian basis for esthetic
analysis of style in sketching. AIE EDAM: Artificial Intelligence
for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing
20(03):185–199.

Burns, K. 2012. Eve s energy in aesthetic experience: a
bayesian basis for haiku humour. Journal of Mathematics
and the Arts 6(2-3):77–87.

Burns, K. 2015. Computing the creativeness of amusing
advertisements: A Bayesian model of Burma-Shave’s muse.

AIE EDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
Analysis, and Manufacturing 29(01):109–128.

Chan, H., and Ventura, D. 2008. Automatic composition of
themed mood pieces. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity, 109–115.

Colton, S.; Pease, A.; Corneli, J.; Cook, M.; and Llano, T.
2014. Assessing progress in building autonomously creative
systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference
on Computational Creativity, 137–145.

Colton, S.; Goodwin, J.; and Veale, T. 2012. Full face poetry
generation. In Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Computational Creativity, 95–102.

Colton, S.; Pease, A.; and Charnley, J. 2011. Computational
creativity theory: The FACE and IDEA descriptive models.
In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Computational Creativity, 90–95.

Colton, S. 2008a. Creativity versus the perception of creativity
in computational systems. In AAAI Spring Symposium:
Creative Intelligent Systems, 14–20.

Colton, S. 2008b. Experiments in constraint-based automated
scene generation. Proceedings of the Fifth International
Workshop on Computational Creativity 2008 127.

Das, A., and Gamb¨ack, B. 2014. Poetic machine: Computational
creativity for automatic poetry generation in bengali.
In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference
on Computational Creativity.

Galanter, P. 2012. Computational aesthetic evaluation: Past
and future. In Computers and Creativity. Springer. 255–293.

Gerv´as, P. 2002. Exploring quantitative evaluations of the
creativity of automatic poets. In Proc. of the 2nd Workshop
on Creative Systems, Approaches to Creativity in Artificial
Intelligence and Cognitive Science, the 15th European Conf.
on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2002).

Gerv´as, P. 2007. On the fly collaborative story-telling: Revising
contributions to match a shared partial story line. International
JointWorkshop on Computational Creativity 13.

Jordanous, A. 2012. A standardised procedure for evaluating
creative systems: Computational creativity evaluation
based on what it is to be creative. Cognitive Computation
4(3):246–279.

Karampiperis, P.; Koukourikos, A.; and Koliopoulou, E.
2014. Towards machines for measuring creativity: The use
of computational tools in storytelling activities. In Proceedings
of the 14th International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies (ICALT), 508–512.

Kaufman, J. C.; Baer, J.; and Cole, J. C. 2009. Expertise,
domains, and the consensual assessment technique. The
Journal of creative behavior 43(4):223–233.

Lehman, J.,and Stanley, K. O. 2012. Beyond openendedness:
Quantifying impressiveness. In Artificial Life,
volume 13, 75–82.

Llano, M. T.; Hepworth, R.; Colton, S.; Gow, J.; Charnley,
J.; Granroth-Wilding, M.; and Clark, S. 2014. Baseline
methods for automated fictional ideation. In Proceedings of
the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity,
211–219.

Monteith, K.; Brown, B.; Ventura, D.; and Martinez, T.
2013. Automatic generation of music for inducing physiological
response. In Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science
Society, 3098–3103.

Monteith, K.; Martinez, T.; and Ventura, D. 2010. Automatic
generation of music for inducing emotive response. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational
Creativity, 140–149.

Norton, D.; Heath, D.; and Ventura, D. 2010. Establishing
appreciation in a creative system. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Computational Creativity, 26–
35.

Norton, D.; Heath, D.; and Ventura, D. 2013. Finding creativity
in an artificial artist. The Journal of Creative Behavior
47(2):106–124.

Pearce, M. T., and Wiggins, G. A. 2007. Evaluating cognitive
models of musical composition. In Proceedings of the
4th International JointWorkshop on Computational Creativity,
73–80.

Pease, A.; Winterstein, D.; and Colton, S. 2001. Evaluating
machine creativity. In Workshop on Creative Systems, 4th
International Conference on Case Based Reasoning, 129–
137.

Poetry Foundation. 2014. Poetry magazine discussion
guide. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/guide/89. Accessed: 2015-02-03.

Rashel, F., and Manurung, R. 2014. Pemuisi: a constraint
satisfaction-based generator of topical Indonesian poetry. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational
Creativity, 82–90.

Riedl, M. O., and Young, R. M. 2006. Story planning as exploratory
creativity: Techniques for expanding the narrative
search space. New Generation Computing 24(3):303–323.

Ritchie, G.; Munro, R.; Pain, H.; and Binsted, K. 2008.
Evaluating humorous properties of texts. In AISB 2008 Convention
Communication, Interaction and Social Intelligence,
volume 1, 17.

Ritchie, G. 2001. Assessing creativity. In Proc. of AISB01
Symposium.

Ritchie, G. 2007. Some empirical criteria for attributing
creativity to a computer program. Minds and Machines
17(1):67–99.

Rom´an, I. G., and y P´erez, R. P. 2014. Social Mexica: A
computer model for social norms in narratives. In Proceedings
of the Fifth International Conference on Computational
Creativity, 192–200.

Smith, M. R.; Hintze, R. S.; and Ventura, D. 2014. Nehovah:
A neologism creator nomen ipsum. In Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity,
193–181.

Tearse, B.; Mawhorter, M. M. P.; and Wardrip-Fruin, N.
2011. Experimental results from a rational reconstruction
of MINSTREL. In Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Computational Creativity.

Ventura, D. 2008. A reductio ad absurdum experiment in
sufficiency for evaluating (computational) creative systems.
In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Workshop on
Computational Creativity, 11–19.

Young, M. W.; Bown, O.; et al. 2010. Clap-along: A negotiation
strategy for creative musical interaction with computational
systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Computational Creativity 2010, 215–222.

== Links ==
=== Full Text ===
http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/5_2Lamb.pdf

[[intern file]]

=== Sonstige Links ===

@@ Zeile 30: / Zeile 30: @@
    location = {Park City, Utah, USA},
    pages = {102-109},
-   url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/5_2Lamb.pdf },
+   url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/5_2Lamb.pdf http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Human_Competence_in_Creativity_Evaluation },
    publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
    keywords = {computational, creativity},

Human Competence in Creativity Evaluation - Versionsgeschichte

Gubachelier: /* Bibtex */

Gubachelier: /* Bibtex */

Gubachelier: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Reference == Carolyn Lamb, Daniel G. Brown and Charles Clarke: Human Competence in Creativity Evaluation. In: [[Computational Creativity 2015 ICCC 2015]…“