MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594008475 · doi:10.22215/timreview/1054

Overcoming Barriers to Experimentation in Business-to-Business Living Labs

2017· article· en· W2594008475 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruben D’Hauwers, Aron-Levi Herregodts, Annabel Georges, Lynn Coorevits, Dimitri Schuurman, Olivier Rits, Pieter Ballon

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology Innovation Management Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)BusinessService (business)Living labMarketingBusiness modelProcess managementEngineering managementEngineeringComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionProviders of “living labs as a service” – who offer services such as designing the idea-generation processes, planning or carrying out real-world tests of innovations, and assessing pre-market launches (Ståhlbröst, 2013) – are confronted with an ever-increasing demand for B2B-oriented projects. B2B companies focus on transactions between companies, whereas

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)0.251
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.250
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2510.250
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0070.014
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology Innovation Management ReviewSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207