Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on Living Labs that are open user-centred environments for networked innovation development. Although the concept of open innovation has quickly attracted both the scientific and applied communities, research on Living Labs is scarce, and literature lacks understanding of the characteristics of the Living Labs model. We aim to describe what the Living Labs are from the innovation network perspective. Using a case study of a regional Living Labs initiative, we describe the key participants and their roles in the Living Labs network. In addition, we discuss their motives to participate in the network, as well as the outcomes and perceived challenges of innovation co-creation. According to our findings, Living Labs are a practical way of encouraging open innovation. They are dedicated inter-organisational environments that provide pertinent support for Concurrent Engineering’s (CE) networked processes. The integration of users as co-producers in product development is imperative for success in the Living Labs model because it reveals their latent needs and enables unforeseen outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".