MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159151862 · doi:10.1504/ijeim.2015.068424

Collaborative competitors in a fast-changing technology environment: open innovation in environmental technology development in the oil and gas industry

2015· article· en· W2159151862 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amir Bahman Radnejad, Harrie Vredenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisOpen innovationBusinessResource (disambiguation)Software deploymentIndustrial organizationBridging (networking)Conceptual modelPetroleum industryTechnology roadmapMarketingKnowledge managementComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The open innovation model has been the topic of many studies, but studies of applications of the model in resource–based industries are scarce. In this research, we examine the deployment of the open innovation model in resource–based industries through the case of the Canadian oil and gas sector. Our findings show that the need for technical innovation is rapidly increasing as a result of the nature of the new complex fossil fuel reservoirs the industry is now developing. High research and development costs, long development cycles, resistance to change and high technical risk, we find, are obstacles hindering the development of new innovative technologies. In response to these challenges to innovation, the Canadian industry experimented with a unique model of open innovation by establishing an industry–level organisation. In this study, we explore this emerging model of open innovation and interpret its successes and failures through the use of the theoretical literature. The conceptual model that we derive combines strategic bridging organisational concepts with open innovation ideas to help us understand the building of an innovative technologies network at the industry level.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation ManagementSame topicPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalFrench-language works237,207