MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471687372 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511510847.005

Research and Development and Innovation

2003· book-chapter· en· W2471687372 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Baldwin, Petr Hanel

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2003
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Capital and Performance Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIBMScientific revolutionScientific discoveryKnowledge flowSociology of scientific knowledgePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEngineeringBusinessKnowledge managementSociologySocial scienceEpistemologyComputer scienceNanotechnologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovation requires a conscious effort to develop new ideas for both products and processes. During the nineteenth century, scientific progress was less structured and typically arose from ideas developed in many different areas of the firm. While sources for ideas still flow from different areas, the twentieth century has seen increasing emphasis placed on formal research and development (R&D) facilities as a source of innovation. The renowned research laboratories of AT&T, General Electric, Dupont, and IBM epitomize the organized pursuit of scientific knowledge and its application to production problems. It is true that science played an important role in the early industrial revolution in the United Kingdom; nevertheless, in the twentieth century, the modern corporate enterprise has harnessed science and technology in a new and more extensive fashion within its organizational bounds. Systematic management rules are used to pursue scientific knowledge in the interest of economic well-being.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicIntellectual Capital and Performance AnalysisFrench-language works237,207