Innovation ouverte et management de la propriété intellectuelle. Quelles stratégies dans le jeu vidéo ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nombreuses sont les difficultés de maîtrise et de valorisation des droits de propriété attachés à l'innovation collaborative.La littérature indique une relation négative entre le niveau d'ouverture du processus d'innovation et la détention des droits de propriété.Toutefois, elle ne précise ni le type de collaboration ni la nature des partenaires.À travers l'étude de cinq studios de jeu vidéo, nous mettons en évidence que l'ouverture du processus d'innovation par une collaboration fermée avec des partenaires implique une relation négative entre niveau d'ouverture et détention des droits de propriété intellectuelle.À l'inverse, une collaboration ouverte sur des communautés d'utilisateurs conduit à un lien positif. Innovation ouverte et management de la propriété intellectuelleQuelles stratégies dans le jeu vidéo ?
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".