MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343521063 · doi:10.22215/timreview/1011

A Proposed Approach for Idea Selection in Front End of Innovation Activities

2016· article· en· W2343521063 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrew N. Forde, Mark S. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology Innovation Management Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFront and back endsSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceFront (military)BusinessProcess managementEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionIdea generation appears to be a simple task, and in many ways, it is. Anyone can have a new idea that fundamentally changes a technology, a society, or the world at large. Equally, anyone can have an idea that offers no value. Without acting on these ideas, how can we know whether an idea will change the world or just be another failed attempt to reach an

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.005

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology Innovation Management ReviewSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207