MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055987003 · doi:10.1504/ijtmkt.2009.032178

The renewal and transformation of high, medium and low tech: a comparative approach

2009· article· en· W2055987003 on OpenAlex

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

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Marketing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessIndustrial organizationHigh techInvestment (military)Perspective (graphical)Open innovationDimension (graph theory)Work (physics)Production (economics)Transformation (genetics)MarketingEconomicsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade, innovation studies have mainly focused on the high tech (HT) sector due to its soaring return on investment, and the critical role it plays building new economies. As a result, the innovation literature focus has deviated from the traditional, low and medium tech (LMT) to HT sectors. This study, among a series of recently published work, stresses the importance of LMT sectors from an innovation perspective. Results suggest that a renewal and transformation is occurring to both sectors. LMT is shifting towards differentiation, while HT is increasing its cost awareness dimension. Furthermore, HT firms are using both the linear model of innovation as well as the open innovation model. Firms in LMT that are generally conceived to be supplier dependent are enhancing their internal knowledge production mechanism to support their differentiation strategy and are still the user of the general purpose technologies that HT produces.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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