MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164305298 · doi:10.4236/ti.2011.21006

Research and Development Cooperation between Rivals: A Novel Motive beyond New Knowledge

2011· article· en· W2164305298 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Le Duc Niem

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Investment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)IncentiveProduct (mathematics)Process (computing)Constraint (computer-aided design)BusinessNew product developmentSelection (genetic algorithm)MicroeconomicsIndustrial organizationMarketingEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examines a motive for R&D cooperation with a rival by considering the behavior of a quality follower in a model of vertically differentiated products. We show that, in some settings, a quality follower has an incentive to contribute money to R&D activity of a quality leader with the sole purpose of making the leader’s products even better. The reason behind this motivation is that the leader’s product quality is serving as an upper-constraint in the decision process of the follower regarding product quality selection. Thus, if the leader’s product quality is raised both firms will be better off.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and InvestmentSame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207