MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034928162 · doi:10.1142/s1363919607001606

GAMES OF INNOVATION: A NEW THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

2007· article· en· W2034928162 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Miller, Serghei Floricel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Innovation Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Perspective (graphical)Open innovationBusinessReproductionInnovation managementKnowledge managementValue creationInvestment (military)Value captureIndustrial organizationProduct innovationMarketingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Games of innovation are sets of rules that structure meso-level innovation systems composed of organisational actors that compete and collaborate to create value. All game rules are coherent, with one dominant value-creation logic, and refer to all the aspects of managing innovation, from competitive strategies and policies for investment in innovation capabilities to practices for identifying opportunities and managing projects. The dominant logic that guides them stems from prevailing conditions for innovation, which open certain avenues by which participants produce and capture value, but which close others. The rules stabilise and ensure the reproduction of innovation systems for long periods of time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Innovation ManagementSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207