Building a Measurement Model for Market Visioning Competence and Its Proposed Antecedents: Organizational Encouragement of Divergent Thinking, Divergent Thinking Attitudes, and Ideational Behavior
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall question that this research seeks to answer is the following: Are there individual and/or organizational resources related to “divergent thinking” that enhance or inhibit the firm's market visioning competence in the case of radical innovation? In order to answer this question, in this paper, the key focus is on the realm of potential divergent thinking‐related resources that the firm may possess and access to aid in the creation and development of an effective market visioning competence. In particular, individual‐level factors related to divergent thinking capabilities and, at the organizational level, encouragement of such capabilities, are investigated. Specifically, we propose that two organizational‐level factors related to organizational encouragement of divergent thinking (“encouraging ideas” and “encouraging diversity”), two individual‐level divergent thinking attitudes factors (“openness” and “ability to move from divergent thinking to convergent thinking efficiently and effectively”), one individual‐level ideational behavior factor (“ability to generate new ideas”), and a further individual cognitive factor (“need for cognition”) have direct impacts on market visioning competence. Scales are then developed and tested for measuring these potential antecedents, and they are included in a measurement model with market visioning competence to enable further research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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)
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 it