Interdisciplinary Heterogeneity as a Catalyst for Product Innovativeness of Entrepreneurial Teams
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
Although more and more ventures are successfully founded by entrepreneurial teams, the specific benefits of the team‐based founding approach have received little attention in extant empirical studies. This study explores the relationship between the level of interdisciplinary heterogeneity in entrepreneurial teams and the level of product innovativeness in high‐tech ventures. It is proposed that an interdisciplinary new venture team composition impacts the quality of the strategic planning process (scanning activities, planning openness) and thereby indirectly shapes product innovativeness. The hypotheses are investigated using data from a sample of Canadian high‐tech ventures. The findings provide support for the proposed relationship between team heterogeneity, strategic planning and product innovativeness. Venture capitalists, university faculty and incubator institutions are therefore well advised to direct their attention towards fostering a heterogeneous composition of founding teams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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