MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964380718 · doi:10.1109/itmc.2011.5995937

A research on the mechanism of building total innovation management system via information and communication technology: Case studies in the context of China

2011· article· en· W1964380718 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Qingrui Xu, Lu Jin, Liang Mei

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Social Science Fund of ChinaInternational Development Research CentreNational Science Foundation
KeywordsKnowledge managementLeverage (statistics)Information and Communications TechnologyContext (archaeology)Information systemEmpirical researchInnovation managementManagement information systemsComputer scienceInformation sharingInformation managementInformation technologyBusinessProcess managementEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total innovation management(TIM) is a new management paradigm adapting to Chinese context. It derives from innovation management theories and a large number of enterprises' business management practice in and out of China. Previous studies mainly focus on the role of TIM on enterprise's development and the internal relationship in TIM system, but lack of the concern for the antecedents of TIM. As a crucial factor promoting the social development, information and communication technology(ICT) is also considered as one of the major drivers of TIM. By the implementation of ICT, enterprises leverage their information capability (including information acquiring capability, information sharing capability, information processing capability and information materializing capability), which pushs forward the construction of TIM system. This paper first proposed a concept framework of building TIM System via ICT . With the case studies of Haier Group, Honyar and FPI, the mechanism that informationization facilitated the establishment of TIM system under different industries and business models was discussed, and the research framework for future empirical research was confirmed. Finally, the paper illustrated the limitation of theory and practice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207