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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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