joelchan's working notes

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

EVD

This is an "Orphan" page. Its core content has not been shared: what you see below is a loose collection of pages and page snippets that mention this page, as well as snippets of this page that were quoted elsewhere.

Referenced in

[[EVD]] - journal pairs from the same Web of Science discipline had significantly higher z-scores than journal pairs across disciplines - [[@uzziAtypicalCombinationsScientific2013]]

[[EVD]] - Far analogies' effects on MechE students' ideation fluency and diversity were different depending on timing: more ideas (but with more functional repeats) before ideation began, vs. more functionally distinct designs after problem solving began (during a break), both compared to seeing nothing - [[@tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]

[[EVD]] - Far analogies were rare and never used in psychology lab group meetings for reasoning (vs. mere mentions); far analogies were rare in colloquia as well, but were frequently used for reasoning - [[@sanerAnalogiesOutBlue1999]]

[[EVD]] - In a design team, concepts tended to be more similar to their immediately preceding concepts after far analogy use compared to using near or no analogies - [[@chanImpactAnalogiesCreative2015]]

[[EVD]] - In general, MechE students' ideas when given near analogies were at least as novel, and sometimes moreso, then ideas generated with far analogies, or seeing nothing - [[@tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]

[[EVD]] - A molecular biologist who had made a major scientific conceptual change did not recall any of the spontaneous analogies used to enact that change - [[@dunbarHowScientistsThink1997]]

[[EVD]] - highly novel papers were more likely to be published in lower impact journals - [[@wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD]] - teams were more likely than single or pair-authored papers to cite atypical combinations of journals - [[@uzziAtypicalCombinationsScientific2013]]

[[EVD]] - patenting teams with a greater number of prior patenting fields were more likely to generate patents that were technological outliers - [[@kneelandExploringUnchartedTerritory2020]]

[[EVD]] - papers with high median conventionality and high tail atypical combinations of journals they cited were 2x more likely than average to be in top 5 percent of citation distribution - [[@uzziAtypicalCombinationsScientific2013]]

[[EVD]] - highly novel papers had higher variance in their citation outcomes over a 15-year window, biased towards the higher impact tail of the distribution - [[@wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD]] - Molecular biologists with a reputation for innovation rarely used very far analogies in their lab meetings while generating novel scientific concepts; instead, they relied mainly on analogies to the same or other biological organisms - [[@dunbarHowScientistsThink1997]]

[[EVD]] - highly novel combinations of cited journals in a paper were almost always cross-disciplinary, but cross-disciplinary combinations were infrequently novel - [[@wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD]] - Far analogies' effects on MechE students' novelty of ideas were different depending on timing: more novel ideas when seeing them after problem solving began vs. before - [[@tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]

[[EVD]] - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - [[@wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD]] - patents filed by inventors who was new to the patent's field tended to be more novel; this was less true if they collaborated with an expert in the new field - [[@artsParadiseNoveltyLoss2018a]]

[[EVD]] - Self-rated technical distance from open innovation contest problems was slightly positively correlated with submitting winning solutions - [[@jeppesenMarginalityProblemsolvingEffectiveness2010]]

[[EVD]] - patents filed by inventors who was new to the patent's field tended to receive slightly fewer citations, except when they collaborated with an expert in the new field - [[@artsParadiseNoveltyLoss2018a]]

[[EVD]] - designs that were measured during an ideation session to have come from a higher percentage of far analogies were perceived as more original and valuable by potential customer judges - [[@dahlInfluenceValueAnalogical2002]]

[[EVD]] - Engineering students who were given one or more near analogies as stimuli generated design ideas that were perceived as less original and valuable by potential customer judges, compared to being given no stimuli - [[@dahlInfluenceValueAnalogical2002]]

[[EVD]] - Undergrad MechE students who saw near analogies (clocks) for a time-keeping problem preferred discrete (drip-based) solutions to continuous (e.g., flow/fill) solutions - [[@tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]