MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New paradigms for the future: keynote perspectives from The R&D Management Conference 2008

2009· article· en· W1883355614 on OpenAlexaff
Flavia Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueR and D Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforcePrivate sectorFace (sociological concept)SustainabilityGovernment (linguistics)Diversity (politics)Theme (computing)Public sectorOpen innovationBridging (networking)Public relationsPolitical scienceBusinessKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineeringComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The R&D Management Conference 2008 theme of ‘emerging and new approaches to R&D management’ sought to draw out how R&D-based organizations today are changing the way they manage (in terms of novel approaches, techniques, models and tools) in face of the challenges and opportunities presented in the current environment. Six keynote presentations by executives, representing both the public and private sectors, elaborated on the following subjects reflecting their experiences on the theme: hyperconnectivity and changing R&D tenets, accelerating discoveries in human health via open access public-private partnerships, role of government in bridging the innovation gap, building sustainability and innovation in a traditional resource sector, R&D management in the aerospace sector, and leveraging diversity to build a culture of innovation. Their presentations highlighted amongst other things – global trends that are affecting how R&D organizations are operating, economic imperatives driving change in business models, working through partnerships within an open innovation environment, and leveraging the diversity presented by an increasingly globalized R&D workforce for success. Within these presentations are also challenges to researchers to generate new thinking to address current and future problems presented by the R&D environment. The keynote perspectives are summarized in this paper.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0380.031
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0240.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueR and D ManagementSame topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207