MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493019506

Combining scenario analysis, the Delphi method, and the innovation diffusion model for analyzing the development of the light-emitting diode Panel Industry

2012· article· en· W1493019506 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fang-Mei Tseng, Hou-Tzung Lin

Bibliographic record

VenuePortland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodLiquid-crystal displayDelphiQuarter (Canadian coin)PessimismDiffusionComputer scienceTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to an industry report, light-emitting diode (LED) technology will replace cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) technology in the near future. Therefore, for liquid crystal display (LCD) panel-manufacturing companies to allocate their resources efficiently, it is very important that they understand the demand of these two technologies. This study combined scenario analysis, the Delphi method, and innovation diffusion to analyze the situation over the next five years. Scenario analysis was applied twice. The result of the first one showed that the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV market will grow slowly in the next 5 years, with the LED TV becoming the leader in the market, and also that the panel is the most critical factor in the development of the LCD TV. Therefore, the second analysis was run to analyze in more detail the competitive situation between LED and CCFL panels. The most optimistic, the most pessimistic, and the most likely scenarios of the LED panel market in the next five years were described. The global sales of CCFL and LED panels were also predicted for the three scenarios above using the innovation diffusion model. According to the forecasting results, the LED panel will replace the CCFL panel as the mainstream product in the second quarter of 2012, in the first quarter of 2013, and in the third quarter of 2012 under the optimistic, pessimistic, and likely scenarios, respectively.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePortland International Conference on Management of Engineering and TechnologySame topicInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207