An empirical study of university spin‐off development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The paper is concerned with spin‐off firms and the process by which a new firm is created and formed from a university. The objectives are to examine characteristics of firms generated by this process, and the intensity of the spin‐off firms' network activity with the parent organisation and the local environment during this process. Design/methodology/approach The findings are based on a case‐study consisting out of three firms spun‐off from a research centre at Linköping University in the area of visualisation and computer graphics. The source data are gathered from semi‐structured interviews. No generalisation should be drawn from this study due to the small number of firms interviewed and the scope of the technological area addressed. Findings The results show the importance of collaboration between the university spin‐off, with both the parental organisation and outside organisms, to acquire external competencies in the technological area. The parental organisation plays a pivotal role in the spin‐off process, especially in its early stage where its catalyses the emergence of the business idea by supporting the spin‐off firm with infrastructure and expertise in a specific field of mentorship. However, as the spin‐off evolves, this pre‐incubation service complements yet more support services of municipality and region, which stand to be more important in the technological and business development of the spin‐off. Originality/value University spin‐offs have an important place in the innovation process, but their promotion must be part of a wider policy package encouraging networking not only with the host university, but with industry and the public sector as well. For universities and public research organisations, it is advisable to take a more active role in the spin‐off process beyond the pre‐incubation stage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".