MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157156912 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n1p191

Innovating During Tough Times: Lessons from the Great Composers

2014· article· en· W2157156912 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Terry L. Leap, David W. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Intellectual propertyPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Entrepreneurial spiritBusinessMarketingPublic relationsEconomicsPolitical scienceEntrepreneurshipFinanceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today’s economic environment appears rather inhospitable for innovation – high uncertainty, scarce financial resources, and intensifying competition – each serves to make entrepreneurs’ and managers’ efforts to innovate less likely to succeed. To assist entrepreneurs and managers today, we turn the clock back to the great classical composers – from whom we find timeless advice about how to succeed in difficult circumstances. As world-class musicians, it is obvious that the great classical composers were supreme innovators. But they often performed their work under trying conditions in tumultuous times. Early composers had to be musically creative as well as adept at finding resources to develop and market their work. They faced political suppression and religious discrimination, weak government protection of their intellectual property, and often faced physical dangers in addition to economic challenges that make today’s economic downturn look mild. Drawing from the collective wisdom of these great innovators, we offer to today’s managers and entrepreneurs a way forward for innovating in tough times.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.422
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207