MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912251924

The price of admission: Examining how expectancies and values can overcome innovation

2018· article· en· W2912251924 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eleftherios Soleas

Bibliographic record

Venue2018 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Expectancy theoryScope (computer science)Variety (cybernetics)Value (mathematics)PerceptionPerspective (graphical)MarketingBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyManagementEconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the expectancies, values, and costs that are involved in motivating current Canadian innovators. While much of the innovation literature is dominated by studies from the business literature, this study adopts an interdisciplinary approach that expands the scope of innovation to reflect a more diverse perspective encompassing radical and incremental innovators that generate social and/or economic wealth. Through the lens of Expectancy-Value Theory, this study will ask existing Canadian innovators about their experiences and perceptions of innovation to identify their implicitly and explicitly held motivations through interviews. 15-20 existing Canadian innovators selected from a variety of disciplines including engineering, business, design, scholastics, and artists will inform the development and administration of an inventory administered to 500 existing innovators that will expand and nuance the findings of the interviews. The resultant consolidation of findings will identify the factors supporting innovation among existing Canadian innovators and would inform the design of learning environments that support innovation education for all students.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2018 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of EducationSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207