MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147724292 · doi:10.1142/s0219877007001211

FIRM PERCEPTIONS OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF NEW UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR IMPACT ON EXCLUSIVITY OF LICENSING TRANSACTIONS

2007· article· en· W2147724292 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 Innovation and Technology Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationCompetitive advantageBusinessIndustrial organizationDatabase transactionInvestment (military)Technology transferTransaction costMarketingProduct (mathematics)New product developmentValue (mathematics)Process (computing)Empirical researchCommerceComputer scienceInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercialization of new university technology within the new product development process is an important tool by which established firms can expand their innovative capabilities. The competitive advantage afforded by new university technologies, however, varies considerably. An exclusivity agreement is a useful tool to protect the firm's investment and help ensure that value is appropriated through the commercialization process. An empirical study of 66 technology transfer projects in the information and communications technology industry reveals that when the firm's perception of competitive advantage afforded by the new technology is high, the licensing transaction is usually secured by some form of exclusivity agreement.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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