The Experts below are selected from a list of 2769 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Anna Jordanous - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Computational Creativity - Evaluating Evaluation: Assessing Progress and Practices in Computational Creativity Research.
Computational Synthesis and Creative Systems, 2019Co-Authors: Anna JordanousAbstract:Computational Creativity Research has produced many computational systems that are described as ‘creative’. Historically, these ‘creative systems’ have not received much in terms of evaluation of the actual Creativity of the systems, although this has recently attracted more attention as a Research perspective. As a scientific Research community, computational Creativity Researchers can benefit from more systematic/standardised approaches to evaluation of the Creativity of our systems, to help us progress in understanding Creativity and modelling it computationally. A methodology for Creativity evaluation should accommodate different manifestations of Creativity but also requires a clear, definitive statement of the tests used for evaluation. Here a historical perspective is given on how computational Creativity Researchers have evaluated (or not evaluated) the Creativity of their systems, considering contextual reasons behind this. Different evaluation approaches and frameworks are currently available, though it is not yet clear which (if any) of several recently proposed methods are emerging as the preferred options to use. The Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems (SPECS) forms an overarching set of guidelines for how to tackle evaluation of creative systems and can incorporate recent proposals for Creativity evaluation. To help decide which evaluation method is best to use, this chapter concludes by exploring five meta-evaluation criteria devised from cross-disciplinary Research into good evaluative practice. Together, these considerations help us explore best practice in computational Creativity evaluation, helping us develop the tools we have available to us as computational Creativity Researchers.
-
evaluating evaluation assessing progress in computational Creativity Research
ICCC, 2011Co-Authors: Anna JordanousAbstract:Computational Creativity Research has produced many computational systems that are described as creative. A comprehensive literature survey reveals that although such systems are labelled as creative, there is a distinct lack of evaluation of the Creativity of creative systems. As a Research community, we should adopt a more scientific approach to evaluation of the Creativity of our systems if we are to progress in understanding Creativity and modelling it computationally. A methodology for Creativity evaluation should accommodate different manifestations of Creativity but also require a clear, definitive statement of the standards used for evaluation. This paper proposes Evaluation Guidelines, a standard but flexible approach to evaluation of the Creativity of computational systems and argues that this approach should be taken up as standard practice in computational Creativity Research. The approach is outlined and discussed, then illustrated through a comparative evaluation of the Creativity of jazz improvisation systems.
-
ICCC - Evaluating evaluation: Assessing progress in computational Creativity Research
2011Co-Authors: Anna JordanousAbstract:Computational Creativity Research has produced many computational systems that are described as creative. A comprehensive literature survey reveals that although such systems are labelled as creative, there is a distinct lack of evaluation of the Creativity of creative systems. As a Research community, we should adopt a more scientific approach to evaluation of the Creativity of our systems if we are to progress in understanding Creativity and modelling it computationally. A methodology for Creativity evaluation should accommodate different manifestations of Creativity but also require a clear, definitive statement of the standards used for evaluation. This paper proposes Evaluation Guidelines, a standard but flexible approach to evaluation of the Creativity of computational systems and argues that this approach should be taken up as standard practice in computational Creativity Research. The approach is outlined and discussed, then illustrated through a comparative evaluation of the Creativity of jazz improvisation systems.
Karl K Jeffries - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a scattered cat a critical evaluation of the consensual assessment technique for Creativity Research
Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 2019Co-Authors: Genevieve Mercedes Cseh, Karl K JeffriesAbstract:Amabile’s consensual assessment technique (CAT)—taking the consensus opinions of domain experts—is considered a “gold standard” of Creativity assessment for Research purposes. While several studies have identified how specific procedural choices impact the CAT’s reliability as a measure, Researchers’ depth of knowledge about procedures and their effects still remains incomplete. This article explores gaps in the Research by reviewing CAT and Creativity literature and aims to explore to what extent the Creativity Research community needs to revisit and reflect on the CAT and solidify protocols for its implementation. The conclusion highlights the need for new debate and a program of Research to clarify, evidence, and harmonize CAT methodology while simultaneously preserving the CAT’s flexibility. This would enable the development and sophistication of the CAT, including possible new assistive technologies, to further strengthen its use within the science of Creativity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Amabile‘s Consensual Assessment Technique: Why Has It Not Been Used more in Design Creativity Research?
2012Co-Authors: Karl K JeffriesAbstract:Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) has been described as the “gold standard” of Creativity assessment; been extensively used within Creativity Research, and is seen as the most popular method of assessing creative outputs. Its discussion within scholarly Research has continued to grow year by year. However, since 1996, a systematic review of the CAT has not been undertaken, and, within design journals, appears not to have occurred, in relation to design, or more broadly, the creative industries in general. Yet, the consensus of domain judges is a prevalent methodology for design education, and professional design awards. This paper presents the findings from a systematic literature review of the CAT covering works from 1982 to 2011. It details key journals and authors publishing or citing CAT related studies, and highlights the limited number of CAT studies within design journals, with suggestions for why this may be the case.
Limei Zhao - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
knowledge map of Creativity Research based on keywords network and co word analysis 1992 2011
Quality & Quantity, 2015Co-Authors: Wei Zhang, Qingpu Zhang, Bo Yu, Limei ZhaoAbstract:To clarify the spatial structure of Creativity Research can let us clearly understand the specific distribution of Research paradigms, thus contributing to better discover other topics we need to study. We picked out 163 top keywords from 4,575 papers on Creativity Research in the Web of Science Database during the period of 1992–2011, and drawn the keywords network and it spatial structure of major Research topics and paradigms by employing K-core of SNA, Co-word analysis, and MDS and the functions of software UCINET 6.0 and NetDraw. The analysis results show that there are five main topics on Creativity Research: practice applications of Creativity, pathology and physiology of Creativity, individual-level Creativity, organizational-level Creativity, and the basic theories and methodologies of Creativity, and the regular spatial structure.
-
Knowledge map of Creativity Research based on keywords network and co-word analysis, 1992–2011
Quality & Quantity, 2014Co-Authors: Wei Zhang, Qingpu Zhang, Bo Yu, Limei ZhaoAbstract:To clarify the spatial structure of Creativity Research can let us clearly understand the specific distribution of Research paradigms, thus contributing to better discover other topics we need to study. We picked out 163 top keywords from 4,575 papers on Creativity Research in the Web of Science Database during the period of 1992–2011, and drawn the keywords network and it spatial structure of major Research topics and paradigms by employing K-core of SNA, Co-word analysis, and MDS and the functions of software UCINET 6.0 and NetDraw. The analysis results show that there are five main topics on Creativity Research: practice applications of Creativity, pathology and physiology of Creativity, individual-level Creativity, organizational-level Creativity, and the basic theories and methodologies of Creativity, and the regular spatial structure.
Simon Colton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
stakeholder groups in computational Creativity Research and practice
Atlantis Press, 2015Co-Authors: Simon Colton, Alison Pease, Joseph Corneli, Michael Cook, Rose Hepworth, Dan VenturaAbstract:The notion that software could be independently and usefully creative is becoming more commonplace in scientific, cultural, business and public circles. It is not fanciful to imagine creative software embedded in society in the short to medium term, acting as collaborators and autonomous creative agents for much societal benefit. Technologically, there is still some way to go to enable Artificial Intelligence methods to create artefacts and ideas of value, and to get software to do so in interesting and engaging ways. There are also a number of sociological hurdles to overcome in getting society to accept software as being truly creative, and we concentrate on those here. We discuss the various communities that can be considered stakeholders in the perception of computers being creative or not. In particular, we look in detail at three sets of stakeholders, namely the general public, Computational Creativity Researchers and fellow creatives. We put forward various philosophical points which we argue will shape the way in which society accepts creative software. We make various claims along the way about how people perceive software as being creative or not, which we believe should be addressed with scientific experimentation, and we call on the Computational Creativity Research community to do just that.
-
seven catchy phrases for computational Creativity Research
Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, 2009Co-Authors: Simon ColtonAbstract:I understand that simulating creative processes by computer can enhance our understanding of Creativity in humans. I also understand that there is more need than ever for software to help people to be more efficient in creative jobs. And I know that computational Creativity Research can be of great value in both these areas. However, I'm really only interested in the intellectual challenge of enabling nuts and bolts machines - bits and bytes computers - to create artefacts of real cultural value to society. Such behaviour used to be thought of as divinely inspired, no less than a gift from the Gods. This is why it is a worthy challenge for me to bet my career against. Building a truly computationally creative machine is as much a societal as a technical challenge, and it will need computational Creativity Researchers to come together in consensus about certain aspects of their field. To this end, I have written here seven phrases around which we could rally (or about which we could debate - which may also be healthy). I present the ideas from which the phrases emerged with little argumentation, in the tradition of a position paper. They are drawn from twelve years of immersion in the field of computational Creativity during which I've written an automated mathematician (HR) and an automated painter (The Painting Fool), and they have created artefacts which I believe are of real value to society.
-
Computational Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach - Seven Catchy Phrases for Computational Creativity Research.
2009Co-Authors: Simon ColtonAbstract:I understand that simulating creative processes by computer can enhance our understanding of Creativity in humans. I also understand that there is more need than ever for software to help people to be more efficient in creative jobs. And I know that computational Creativity Research can be of great value in both these areas. However, I'm really only interested in the intellectual challenge of enabling nuts and bolts machines - bits and bytes computers - to create artefacts of real cultural value to society. Such behaviour used to be thought of as divinely inspired, no less than a gift from the Gods. This is why it is a worthy challenge for me to bet my career against. Building a truly computationally creative machine is as much a societal as a technical challenge, and it will need computational Creativity Researchers to come together in consensus about certain aspects of their field. To this end, I have written here seven phrases around which we could rally (or about which we could debate - which may also be healthy). I present the ideas from which the phrases emerged with little argumentation, in the tradition of a position paper. They are drawn from twelve years of immersion in the field of computational Creativity during which I've written an automated mathematician (HR) and an automated painter (The Painting Fool), and they have created artefacts which I believe are of real value to society.
Wei Zhang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
knowledge map of Creativity Research based on keywords network and co word analysis 1992 2011
Quality & Quantity, 2015Co-Authors: Wei Zhang, Qingpu Zhang, Bo Yu, Limei ZhaoAbstract:To clarify the spatial structure of Creativity Research can let us clearly understand the specific distribution of Research paradigms, thus contributing to better discover other topics we need to study. We picked out 163 top keywords from 4,575 papers on Creativity Research in the Web of Science Database during the period of 1992–2011, and drawn the keywords network and it spatial structure of major Research topics and paradigms by employing K-core of SNA, Co-word analysis, and MDS and the functions of software UCINET 6.0 and NetDraw. The analysis results show that there are five main topics on Creativity Research: practice applications of Creativity, pathology and physiology of Creativity, individual-level Creativity, organizational-level Creativity, and the basic theories and methodologies of Creativity, and the regular spatial structure.
-
Knowledge map of Creativity Research based on keywords network and co-word analysis, 1992–2011
Quality & Quantity, 2014Co-Authors: Wei Zhang, Qingpu Zhang, Bo Yu, Limei ZhaoAbstract:To clarify the spatial structure of Creativity Research can let us clearly understand the specific distribution of Research paradigms, thus contributing to better discover other topics we need to study. We picked out 163 top keywords from 4,575 papers on Creativity Research in the Web of Science Database during the period of 1992–2011, and drawn the keywords network and it spatial structure of major Research topics and paradigms by employing K-core of SNA, Co-word analysis, and MDS and the functions of software UCINET 6.0 and NetDraw. The analysis results show that there are five main topics on Creativity Research: practice applications of Creativity, pathology and physiology of Creativity, individual-level Creativity, organizational-level Creativity, and the basic theories and methodologies of Creativity, and the regular spatial structure.
