MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OPEN KNOWLEDGE DISCLOSURE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND ECONOMIC MOTIVATIONS

2007· article· en· W1984564696 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Surveys · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfit (economics)The InternetEconomicsBusinessSociology of scientific knowledgeMarketingSociologyMicroeconomicsSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper reviews current literature on open knowledge disclosure strategies used by firms. It is usually acknowledged that for an innovative firm that does not benefit from a natural protection (such as lead time advance) the best strategy is to keep an innovation secret as long as possible or to protect it through an exclusive patent. However, in apparent contrast to this traditional view, many studies suggest that firms often disclose important parts of their knowledge through scientific publications, conferences, the Internet, etc. This paper aims to provide an overview first of the evidence supporting the existence of open knowledge disclosure and second of the economic motivations that encourage rational, profit seeking firms to adopt these behaviours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.219 · 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