MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992321481 · doi:10.1115/detc2010-28868

The Main Elements Brought by MOKA (KBE Method) to Promote an Accelerated Technology Transfer Process Between Aerospace and Automotive Industries

2010· article· en· W1992321481 on OpenAlexaff
Jimmy Malkoun, Mickae ̈l Gardoni, Louis Rivest

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)AerospaceAutomotive industryTechnology transferComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Manufacturing engineeringWork (physics)Knowledge transferProcess managementEngineering managementSystems engineeringKnowledge managementRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringMechanical engineeringBusinessAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful technology transfer process is a continuous, interactive process where individuals exchange knowledge simultaneously and continuously [1]. This article concerns the evaluation of Knowledge Management methods to support the technology transfer process. The article focuses on an analysis to be performed in order to choose the best combination of methods to meet technology transfer process needs. This paper will present the elements brought by MOKA (KM method) in order to promote technology transfer, so to solve engineering problems, develop new capabilities and improve work practice using innovative solutions. Indeed, the article will present the different stages of technology transfer process, and how the MOKA methodology responds to the various technology transfer stages criteria.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207