MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing the Stage-Gate Process: What Best-Practice Companies Do—I

2002· article· en· W1495363676 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch-Technology Management · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceProcess (computing)RevenueProcess managementProduct (mathematics)New product developmentBusinessOrder (exchange)Work (physics)Stage (stratigraphy)Computer scienceMarketingEngineeringManagementFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OVERVIEW:Now that most companies have implemented a systematic new product process to drive projects from idea to launch, the best-practice companies are improving their processes to make them both faster and more effective. With breakthrough ideas and home-run projects in short supply, some companies are adding a Discovery stage to the front end of the process in order to generate better ideas. Activities in this new stage include: building in an idea capture and handling system; doing voice of customer research work, including “camping out” with customers and working with innovative users; generating scenarios; and holding major revenue-generating events. Best-practice companies are also harnessing fundamental research more effectively by implementing a novel stage-gate approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.291 · 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