Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have cited significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the early stages of vision formation in the radical innovation context and have emphasised the importance of further investigation in this area. As such, this paper aims first to build on the extant literature on organizational, project and Market Vision in order to construct a measure for Technology Vision through theory construction, scale development and modeling. The second goal is to help firms to better understand what the underlying components of Technology Vision are in order to offer themselves the best possible chance of success with the development of radically new, high‐tech products. Based on samples of firms involved with radical innovation research and development in high‐tech sectors in North America and the United Kingdom, conceptual and measurement studies conducted herewith suggest there are five factors related to Technology Vision: Technology Vision benefits, Technology Vision efficiency, Technology Vision magnetism, Technology Vision specificity, and infrastructure clarity. The paper concludes with an examination of the implications of these components of Technology Vision and discusses the need to understand its relationship with Market Vision and the performance of the firm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".