ArticleScientific reports2017
The Beneficial Role of Mobility for the Emergence of Innovation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The dynamics of higher-order novelties.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Interacting innovation processes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Time delays shape the eco-evolutionary dynamics of cooperation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Twitter as an innovation process with damping effect.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Creativity in temporal social networks: how divergent thinking is impacted by one's choice of peers.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2020Article
- The evolution of knowledge within and across fields in modern physics.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Heterogeneity in evolutionary games: an analysis of the risk perception.Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020Article
- Efficient team structures in an open-ended cooperative creativity experiment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Direct reciprocity and model-predictive rationality explain network reciprocity over social ties.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Innovation is a key ingredient for the evolution of several systems, including social and biological ones. Focused investigations and lateral thinking may lead to innovation, as well as serendipity and other random discovery processes. Some individuals are talented at proposing innovation (say innovators), while others at deeply exploring proposed novelties, at getting further insights on a theory, or at developing products, services, and so on (say developers). This separation in terms of innovators and developers raises an issue of paramount importance: under which conditions a system is able to maintain innovators? According to a simple model, this work investigates the evolutionary dynamics that characterize the emergence of innovation. In particular, we consider a population of innovators and developers, in which agents form small groups whose composition is crucial for their payoff. The latter depends on the heterogeneity of the formed groups, on the amount of innovators they include, and on an award-factor that represents the policy of the system for promoting innovation. Under the hypothesis that a "mobility" effect may support the emergence of innovation, we compare the equilibria reached by our population in different cases. Results confirm the beneficial role of "mobility", and the emergence of further interesting phenomena.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.