Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39037067›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2026

Assessing novelty, feasibility and value of creative ideas with an unsupervised approach using GPT-4.

Felix B Kern, Chien-Te Wu, Zenas C Chao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How AI can advance psychological science.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

3 authors.

Felix B KernInternational Research Center for Neurointelligence (WPI-IRCN), UTIAS, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3420-4576
Chien-Te WuInternational Research Center for Neurointelligence (WPI-IRCN), UTIAS, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7349-0731
Zenas C ChaoInternational Research Center for Neurointelligence (WPI-IRCN), UTIAS, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9402-0851

Funding

International Research Center for Neurointelligence (WPI-IRCN)IRCN-Daikin SCPMEXT, Japan
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Creativity is defined by three key factors: novelty, feasibility and value. While many creativity tests focus primarily on novelty, they often neglect feasibility and value, thereby limiting their reflection of real-world creativity. In this study, we employ GPT-4, a large language model, to assess these three dimensions in a Japanese-language Alternative Uses Test (AUT). Using a crowdsourced evaluation method, we acquire ground truth data for 30 question items and test various GPT prompt designs. Our findings show that asking for multiple responses in a single prompt, using an 'explain first, rate later' design, is both cost-effective and accurate (r = .62, .59 and .33 for novelty, feasibility and value, respectively). Moreover, our method offers comparable accuracy to existing methods in assessing novelty, without the need for training data. We also evaluate additional models such as GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4 Omni and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Comparable performance across these models demonstrates the universal applicability of our prompt design. Our results contribute a straightforward platform for instant AUT evaluation and provide valuable ground truth data for future methodological research.

Indexed as

CreativityPsychological TestsPsychometricsAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLanguageMaleYoung AdultAUTcreativitylarge language models

Identifiers

PMID39037067
PMCPMC13051022

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.