Interpreting simultaneous use of an existing technology and its replacement innovation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has been done to understand the meaning of simultaneous use of an existing technology and its replacement innovation by the same person. We take the perspective that simultaneous users are intentional in their decision to use both. In this study, paper and e-books are used as examples of the existing technology and its replacement innovation. Through content analysis of online comments and focus groups, we suggest that paper books used for leisure reading are artefacts with three dimensions (aesthetics, symbolism, instrumental). However, e-books are limited to being digital objects. We posit that simultaneous users consider the e-book an insufficient replacement for the paper book but see sufficient value in adopting it for certain situations. We suggest that during the product development process and particularly during post launch evaluation, firms monitor simultaneous behaviour. If it persists over time, the dimensions of resistance to discontinuing the existing technology should be explored with users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it