MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499832984

The role of alumni attachment in the university technology transfer process

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

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

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
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