MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012209657 · doi:10.1002/kpm.256

Process learning in alliances developing radical versus incremental innovations: evidence from the telecommunications industry

2006· article· en· W2012209657 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jan Feller, Annaleena Parhankangas, Riitta Smeds

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge and Process Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTekesYork UniversityFoundation for Economic Education
KeywordsAllianceGeneral partnershipNoveltyBusinessProcess (computing)UpgradeKnowledge managementDeveloping countryIndustrial organizationMarketingComputer scienceEconomicsPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper sets out to explore the extent to which the alliance partners' approaches to knowledge creation, as well as their ability to upgrade their collaborative R&D processes, vary by the novelty of technology developed within the partnership. The empirical data are based on a survey of 105 R&D partnerships in the global telecommunications industry. The results of this study show that the alliances developing radical innovations differ from alliances developing the incremental innovations in terms of their knowledge creation processes, partner and alliance characteristics, as well as process learning outcomes. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge and Process ManagementSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207