MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1683053554 · doi:10.1177/0306312715596852

Models of innovation: Why models of innovation are models, or what work is being done in calling them models?

2015· article· en· W1683053554 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

VenueSocial Studies of Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersInstitut national de la recherche scientifique
KeywordsConceptualizationNarrativePerspective (graphical)Rhetorical questionConceptual modelFunction (biology)SociologyEpistemologyScientific modellingSymbol (formal)Work (physics)Term (time)Computer scienceKnowledge managementManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceEconomicsEngineeringLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models abound in the literature on innovation. They are continuously being invented and succeed one after the other. At the same time, these models are regularly criticized. This article looks at models of innovation and conducts a conceptual analysis of models. To the producers and users of models of innovation, a model has at least five different meanings: conceptualization, narrative, figure, tool, and perspective. This article suggests that the term ‘model’ has both a scientific and a rhetorical function. A ‘model’ is a symbol of scientificity and travels easily between scholars and between the latter and policy-makers. Calling a conceptualization or narrative or tool ‘model’ facilitates its propagation.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.015
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.072 · 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