MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031909940 · doi:10.2478/fman-2013-0004

What is Innovativeness: Literature Review

2012· article· en· W2031909940 on OpenAlex
Wojciech Nasierowski, F.J. Arcelus

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoundations of Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Interpretation (philosophy)Prime (order theory)Positive economicsBusiness managementEpistemologyPolitical scienceData scienceSociologyEconomicsComputer scienceBusinessPhilosophyLibrary scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For decades what has been heated are debates on topics such as: which country is the most competitive? What is the best country to live in?. However, it may be disputable whether results of these debates have practical outcomes. It is arguable whether is it clear what constructs are in fact discussed, how to measure their level, and how to draw conclusions from such studies. This paper addresses aspects relevant to innovativeness - interpretation, measurement, accuracy and practicality. This paper shows that despite of very abundant literature on the subject, the prime tangible effect deals with various rankings of countries for public relations purpose rather than it provides a policy setting directions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · 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