MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W248930011

Technology, Innovation and Business Development: Theoretical Perspectives

2005· article· en· W248930011 on OpenAlexaff
Diane‐Gabrielle Tremblay, Jean-Marc Fontan, Juan‐Luis Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVeblen goodSocialityReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Dimension (graph theory)Social innovationTerritorialityEntrepreneurshipInnovatorContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Neoclassical economicsSociologyEconomic geographyEconomicsSocial sciencePolitical sciencePublic relations
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovation can be technological, social, and territorial in dimension, although the latter two dimensions are under-researched.A more inclusive definition of innovation is sought by examining all three of the aforementioned dimensions. Following a brief introduction, part one of this investigation reviews the respective roles of both Schumpeter and Veblen in researching the relationships among technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship.Schumpeter's main role in the analysis of innovation is the proposal of the entrepreneur-innovator.Veblen expanded on Schumpeter's theory by illuminating the effects of reciprocity between technology/technique and the social environment. Part two investigates the evolutionary perspective of innovation, reviewing the cyclical, spatial, and systemic territorialized effects of innovation.Finally, part three emphasizes the strong link among sociality, territoriality, and market.It is hypothesized that innovation is influenced by social context. (AKP)

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation ModelsFrench-language works237,207