MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487677768 · doi:10.1111/jpim.12221

Technology Vision for Radical Innovation and Its Impact on Early Success

2014· article· en· W1487677768 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Product Innovation Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersUniversité de SherbrookeBishop's UniversityUniversity of NottinghamCMC Microsystems
KeywordsVisionCLARITYBusinessMarketingSample (material)Competitive advantageIndustrial organizationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For firms involved with the very early stages of emergent radical innovation, technical goals are often held in the mind(s) of only one or a few individuals. The way these individuals mentally imagine or visualize such goals, or “technology visions,” provides an important looking glass for understanding a firm's progression along the path of involvement from a technical discontinuity toward project‐level and organizational‐level involvement with a given technology. Utilizing a large sample of firms engaged in radical innovation in N orth A merica and the U nited K ingdom, this empirical study examines the impact of five dimensions of technology vision on early success: benefits goals, efficiency goals, magnetism, specificity, and infrastructure clarity. Technology vision is found to have a significant positive impact on technical competitive advantage, early success with customers, and ability to attract capital, as measures of early success.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it