MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609442743 · doi:10.1109/e-tems.2016.7912605

Impacts of 3D printing on the development of new business models

2016· article· en· W2609442743 on OpenAlexaff
Jose Montes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicService and Product Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplementarity (molecular biology)Business modelComputer scienceArtifact-centric business process modelProcess managementBusiness process modelingKnowledge managementBusinessBusiness processMarketingWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides evidence of the effects of Industry 4.0 technologies on the creation of new businesses by addressing the question: how is 3D printing (3DP) leading to the development of new business models? To this end, I discuss the elements of a business model and the features of Industry 4.0 and 3DP, and I contrast and analyze previous literature regarding the effects of 3DP on business models. Afterwards, I describe the qualitative method (multiple case study) used to gather, compile, and analyze the influence of 3DP on the business models of 25 enterprises. This analysis shows that 3DP may be influencing the development of whole new businesses and business models. Moreover, it is affecting differently the business models of existing enterprises. This paper also explores the concepts of technology complementarity and service complementarity, which seem to be the core elements of the success of enterprises centered on 3DP.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService and Product InnovationFrench-language works237,207