MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499832984

The role of alumni attachment in the university technology transfer process

2013· article· en· W1499832984 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne L. Scillitoe

Bibliographic record

VenuePortland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsNew York Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnology transferProcess (computing)Knowledge transferSociologyEngineering ethicsEngineering managementStrong tiesInterpersonal tiesKnowledge managementManagementPublic relationsEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research suggests that the ties of university scientists/technologists serve as the primary force that enables the transfer of university knowledge to external parties. These ties include joint research, publications, presentations, and the mentoring and industry placement of students. However, little research has been done to understand the role of alumni and their networks in the university technology transfer process. Drawing from the social network theory, technology transfer, and attachment theory literature, a conceptual model is presented regarding how university alumni ties and alumni attachment, including alumni beyond the direct students of university scientists/technologists, enable university technology transfer through the formation of university-industry firm alliances.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePortland International Conference on Management of Engineering and TechnologySame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207