Innovation for Inclusive Growth: Towards a Theoretical Framework and a Research Agenda
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.273
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.349
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
abstract Inclusive innovation, which we define as innovation that benefits the disenfranchised, is a process as well as a performance outcome. Consideration of inclusive innovation points to inequalities that may arise in the development and commercialization of innovations, and also acknowledges the inequalities that may occur as a result of value creation and capture. We outline opportunities for the development of theory and empirical research around this construct in the fields of entrepreneurship, strategy, and marketing. We aim for a synthesis in views of inclusive innovation and call for future research that deals directly with value creation and the distributional consequences of innovation.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Topic
- Innovation and Socioeconomic Development
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- University of Toronto
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Keywords
- CommercializationConstruct (python library)EntrepreneurshipValue (mathematics)Innovation processInequalityInclusive developmentValue creationOutcome (game theory)Process (computing)MarketingBusinessSociologyEconomicsIndustrial organizationEconomic growthMicroeconomicsComputer scienceWork in processMathematics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes