MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Investigation of Innovation Capability in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises of China

2011· article· en· W2094914993 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Qiang Li, Yong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZhejiang UniversityMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsBottleneckBusinessChinaIndustrial organizationProcess (computing)Manufacturing sectorMarketingOperations managementLabour economicsEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decades, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have grown exponentially and become a key element in China’s economy. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a compararive evaluations of innovation capabilities status of SMEs in China across different sectors. Six dimensions of innovation capability that influence mostly NPD performance of firms are identified, such as technology, organization, strategy, organizational climate, manufacturing and marketing. A practical survey was carried out in the manufacturing industry of Zhejiang Province. We find that in different firm sizes and development stages SMEs have significant disparities in intensity of different capability dimensions respectively. Medium firms has higher scores in all of innovation capability dimensions than small firms. The bottleneck of capabilities in small firms are found in Org_Process, M_C, and MKT_S. All of firms in three stages are consistently adept in MKT_L, Climate_L, and lack in Org_Process; Mature firms exhibit the greatest level in all of innovation capability dimensions, and growing firms and startup firms are lower in sequence.

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 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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207