MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2372230114

The study on termination decision of group projects of enterprise technical innovation

2010· article· en· W2372230114 on OpenAlexaff
Li Xiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInnovation managementPortfolioCompetitive advantageProject portfolio managementManagement scienceKnowledge managementEngineering managementEngineeringProcess managementBusinessProject managementComputer scienceSystems engineeringMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is of a very important Theoretical and practical significance to identify and terminate those futureless technical innovation projects for long-term technical innovation ability and competitive advantage of these enterprises. In this paper, on the foundation of the principle analysis of technical innovation projects termination decision, a mathematical model of four-stages is proposed, which can assist the manager of technical innovation group projects to realize technical innovation projects portfolio optimization and decide how many projects should be terminated before entering next stage. Then the Risk Evaluation Matter-element Model for Enterprise Technology Innovation is applied to decide these projects that should be terminated. The study not only overcome the difficulties and draw backs in the existing method of technical innovation projects termination decision, but also provide a new theoretical basis for following management of technical innovation projects. At the end of this paper, the feasibility and validity of this method are testified by the actual problem.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207