MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367566749

EFFECTS OF EXPECTED DEMAND, TECHNOLOGICAL OPPORTUNITY, APPROPRIABILITY AND COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS ON INVENTION COMMERCIALIZATION

2003· article· en· W2367566749 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationProfitability indexOpportunity costIndustrial organizationEconomicsBusinessMicroeconomicsMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mowery and Rosenberg (1979) temporarily put to rest a rather vigorous debate that had been raging since Schumpeter’s work (1934) on the relative importance of market demand versus technological opportunity as incentives for innovation. Schumpeter (1934) argued forcefully that entrepreneurs are driven by technological opportunity but was rebuffed by Schmookler (1962) who showed that increases in demand preceded increases in inventive activity over the business cycle. Research in the 1960’s and 1970s tended to side with Schmookler, possibly most prominently with the research by Chris Freeman et al. (summarized in Freeman, 1982) where they conclude that market (or user) “need ” is the most important driver of innovation. Other studies claimed to find similar strong dominance of market pull/need over

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207