A Semantic Map for Evaluating Creativity: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
(Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Reference == Frank van der Velde, Roger A. Wolf, Martin Schmettow and Deniece S. Nazareth: A Semantic Map for Evaluating Creativity. In: Computational…“) |
(→Bibtex) |
||
| Zeile 33: | Zeile 33: | ||
location = {Park City, Utah, USA}, | location = {Park City, Utah, USA}, | ||
pages = {94-101}, | pages = {94-101}, | ||
| − | url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/5_1VanDerVelde.pdf}, | + | url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/5_1VanDerVelde.pdf }, |
| − | url = {http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=A_Semantic_Map_for_Evaluating_Creativity}, | + | url = {http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=A_Semantic_Map_for_Evaluating_Creativity }, |
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity}, | publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity}, | ||
keywords = {computational, creativity}, | keywords = {computational, creativity}, | ||
Version vom 30. Oktober 2015, 22:00 Uhr
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Frank van der Velde, Roger A. Wolf, Martin Schmettow and Deniece S. Nazareth: A Semantic Map for Evaluating Creativity. In: Computational Creativity 2015 ICCC 2015, 94-101.
DOI
Abstract
We present a semantic map of words related with creativity. The aim is to empirically derive terms which can be used to rate processes or products of computational creativity. The words in the map are based on association studies performed by human subjects and augmented with words derived from the literature (based on human raters). The words are used in a card sorting study to investigate the way they are categorized by human subjects. The results are arranged in a heat map of word relations based on a hierarchical cluster analysis. The cluster analysis and a principal component analysis provide a set of five to six clusters of items related to each other, and as clusters related to creativity. These clusters could form a basis for scales used to rate aspects of computational creativity.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Velde, Frank van der and Wolf, Roger A. and Schmettow, Martin and Nazareth, Deniece S.},
title = {A Semantic Map for Evaluating Creativity},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2015},
year = {2015},
month = {Jun},
location = {Park City, Utah, USA},
pages = {94-101},
url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/5_1VanDerVelde.pdf },
url = {http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=A_Semantic_Map_for_Evaluating_Creativity },
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}
Used References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations (Vol. 5). Boston: Harvard Business School.
Arden, R., Chavez, R. S., Grazioplene, R. and Junga, R. E. (2010). Neuroimaging creativity: a psychometric review. Behavioural Brain Research, 214:143156.
Coxon, A. P. M. (1999). Sorting data: Collection and analysis. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Cardoso A, Veale T, Wiggins GA. (2009). Converging on the divergent: the history (and future) of the international joint workshops in computational creativity. AI Mag, 30(3):15–22.
Colton S. (2008). Creativity versus the perception of creativity in computational systems. In: Proceedings of AAAI symposium on creative systems, p. 14–20.
Dietrich, A. and Kanso, R. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136:822–848.
Fink, A. & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 44(100): 111–123.
Grace, K. and Maher, M.L. (2014). What to expect when you're expecting: The role of unexpectedness in computationally evaluating creativity, in Proceedings of ICCC2014. http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2014/proceedings/
Harloff, J., & Coxon, A. P. M. (2006). How to Sort. A Short Guide on Sorting Investigations. http://www.methodofsorting.com/HowToSort1-1_english.pdf (GNU Documentation License).
Hennessey, B.A. & Amabile, T.M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.
Jackson, J. E. (1991). A user’s guide to principal components. New York: Wiley.
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt, Vol. 1, pp. 403–404.
Jolliffe, I. T. (1986). Principal component analysis. New York: Springer.
Jordanous, A. (2012a). Evaluating Computational Creativity: A Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems and its Application. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Jordanous, A. (2012b). A standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: Computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative. Cognitive Computation, 4(3), 246-279.
Jordanous, A. (2014). Stepping Back to Progress Forwards: Setting Standards for Meta-Evaluation of Computational Creativity. In S. Colton, D. Ventura, N. Lavrač and M. Cook (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity ICCC-2014, June 10-13, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia (pp. 129-136).
Landauer, T. K. and Dumais, S. T. (1997). A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402-407.
Ritchie, G. (2007). Some empirical criteria for attributing creativity to a computer program. Minds and Machines, 17(1), 67-99.
Salmoni, A. (2012). Open card sort analysis 101. http://www.uxbooth.com/articles/open-card-sort-analysis-101/
Sawyer, K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2):137–154.
Links
Full Text
http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/5_1VanDerVelde.pdf
