MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620665032 · doi:10.29173/cais322

An Investigation Into Factors That Affect Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations in Publishing and Librarianship: A Grounded Theory Approach

2013· article· fr· W2620665032 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusion of innovationsPublishingDiffusionDiffusion theoryHumanitiesSociologyManagementPolitical scienceLibrary scienceBusinessInnovation diffusionMarketingPhilosophyComputer scienceEconomicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Getting innovations adopted is often difficult. Not because they lack obvious advantages, but because of the complex nature of the adoption and diffusion process. If everyone included in their strategy, the six elements of the ‘innovation diffusion mix’ identified in this study, adoption and diffusion would be much easier.Parvenir à adopter des changements est souvent difficile. Non pas que ceux-ci sont désavantageux, mais plutôt à cause de la nature complexe des procédures d’adoption et de diffusion. Si chacun pouvait inclure dans sa stratégie, les six éléments de « l’ensemble de diffusion de changements » identifiés dans cette étude, l’adoption et la diffusion seraient beaucoup plus facile à réaliser.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0120.099
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.184 · 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