Assessing the tools and techniques enterprises use for analysing Innovation, Science and Technology (IS&T) factors: are they up to the task?
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 assesses the methodological tools and techniques that analysts use to assess the evolving Innovation, Science and Technology-related (IS&T) factors impacting their enterprise's competitiveness and strategic environment. Studies generally show that a limited set of conceptual tools are regularly utilised by analysts in some enterprises; nevertheless, they are perceived only to demonstrate mixed success levels in meeting planning or decision-oriented needs. A performance gap exists between organisational needs to proactively address IS&T factors impacting their organisation's competitiveness and the insights actually delivered to decision-makers by existing methods and the analysts who employ them. In this paper, the author defines the scope of IS&T analytical applications, identifies the conceptual tools and techniques used, applies a model for assessing the utility of the tools, describes the reasons why the tools do not deliver what is needed, and makes recommendations for improving the use of IS&T-focused analysis tools.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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