Critical Determinants of Technological Innovation: A Conceptual Framework and a Case Study from Iraq
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
This paper presents a conceptual framework to explore the mechanisms between knowledge sharing and market orientation with a case study from Iraqi industrial SME. This paper attempts to practically justify the presented framework by investigating the relation between knowledge sharing dimensions, in addition to analyzing the mutual relation between knowledge sharing and market orientation and their contribution in fostering technological innovation. This study asserts the effective role of customers in generating of knowledge for firms’ technological innovation. Further, this study provides a complementary perspective between knowledge sharing and market orientation by highlighting customers' role in generating the required knowledge for innovation and the role of knowledge sharing among employees in achieving responsiveness to customers' needs. For practitioners, this paper hopes to help enterprises to obtain deeper understanding of linking mechanisms and recognize the advantages of gathering and generating knowledge about customers and markets, and share this knowledge among all members of the firm to enhance technological innovation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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