Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37588342›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary human sciences2020

Open-ended cumulative cultural evolution of Hollywood film crews.

Peeter Tinits, Oleg Sobchuk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary human sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quantifying and explaining the rise of fiction.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Machine culture.Nature human behaviour · 2023
    Review
  4. Human cumulative culture and the exploitation of natural phenomena.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Peeter TinitsFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3186-6264
Oleg SobchukMax Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0793-4944
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History · DETallinn University · EE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Are there large-scale trends in art history that surpass individual creativity or relatively short artistic movements? Many theories describe art history as a process similar to a change of fashions, while others suggest that art can be progressive - getting better, in some sense, over time. We approach this question anew with the theory of cumulative cultural evolution, which describes cultural accomplishments in terms of innovations that are maintained across generations and accumulated to support ever greater creative potential. In this paper, we empirically test the possibility for cumulative evolution in the techniques used to make an artistic product. Specifically, we measure the size and structure of the production crews in American films in 1910-2010 based on a dataset of 1000 popular films across the century. We find that film crews become exponentially more complex, with a growing set of core jobs, and more innovative in creating new jobs in filmmaking. Our study shows that art history can be cumulative, showing the progressive maintenance of innovative techniques, and thus providing an alternative to the widespread view of art history as a mere fluctuation of trends and fashions.

Indexed as

computational humanitiescultural evolutioncumulative culturefilmsinnovation

Identifiers

PMID37588342
PMCPMC10427440
OpenAlexW3020916510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.