Search

Creativity is a complex, multi-faceted concept encompassing a variety of related aspects, abilities, properties and behaviours. If we wish to study creativity scientifically, then a tractable and well-articulated model of creativity is required. Such a model would be of great value to researchers investigating the nature of creativity and in particular, those concerned with the evaluation of creative practice. This paper describes a unique approach to developing a suitable model of how creative behaviour emerges that is based on the words people use to describe the concept. Using techniques from the field of statistical natural language processing, we identify a collection of fourteen key components of creativity through an analysis of a corpus of academic papers on the topic. Words are identified which appear significantly often in connection with discussions of the concept. Using a measure of lexical similarity to help cluster these words, a number of distinct themes emerge, which collectively contribute to a comprehensive and multi-perspective model of creativity. The components provide an ontology of creativity: a set of building blocks which can be used to model creative practice in a variety of domains. The components have been employed in two case studies to evaluate the creativity of computational systems and have proven useful in articulating achievements of this work and directions for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graphlets are small subgraphs, usually containing up to five vertices, that can be found in a larger graph. Identification of the graphlets that a vertex in an explored graph touches can provide useful information about the local structure of the graph around that vertex. Actually finding all graphlets in a large graph can be time-consuming, however. As the graphlets grow in size, more different graphlets emerge and the time needed to find each graphlet also scales up. If it is not needed to find each instance of each graphlet, but knowing the number of graphlets touching each node of the graph suffices, the problem is less hard. Previous research shows a way to simplify counting the graphlets: instead of looking for the graphlets needed, smaller graphlets are searched, as well as the number of common neighbors of vertices. Solving a system of equations then gives the number of times a vertex is part of each graphlet of the desired size. However, until now, equations only exist to count graphlets with 4 or 5 nodes. In this paper, two new techniques are presented. The first allows to generate the equations needed in an automatic way. This eliminates the tedious work needed to do so manually each time an extra node is added to the graphlets. The technique is independent on the number of nodes in the graphlets and can thus be used to count larger graphlets than previously possible. The second technique gives all graphlets a unique ordering which is easily extended to name graphlets of any size. Both techniques were used to generate equations to count graphlets with 4, 5 and 6 vertices, which extends all previous results. Code can be found at and . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Homophily, the tendency of individuals to associate with others who share similar traits, has been identified as a major driving force in the formation and evolution of social ties. In many cases, it is not clear if homophily is the result of a socialization process, where individuals change their traits according to the dominance of that trait in their local social networks, or if it results from a selection process, in which individuals reshape their social networks so that their traits match those in the new environment. Here we demonstrate the detailed temporal formation of strong homophily in academic achievements of high school and university students. We analyze a unique dataset that contains information about the detailed time evolution of a friendship network of 6,000 students across 42 months. Combining the evolving social network data with the time series of the academic performance (GPA) of individual students, we show that academic homophily is a result of selection: students prefer to gradually reorganize their social networks according to their performance levels, rather than adapting their performance to the level of their local group. We find no signs for a pull effect, where a social environment of good performers motivates bad students to improve their performance. We are able to understand the underlying dynamics of grades and networks with a simple model. The lack of a social pull effect in classical educational settings could have important implications for the understanding of the observed persistence of segregation, inequality and social immobility in societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]