MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923652303 · doi:10.1093/scipol/scz011

Innovation and its enemies: Why people resist new technologies

2019· article· en· W2923652303 on OpenAlex
Qiantao Zhang

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Public Policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Technological Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistBusinessNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of the role of innovation in economic growth has been deepening since the pioneering work of Schumpeter. In Schumpeter’s view, innovative entry by entrepreneurs is the disruptive force that sustains economic growth. Particularly, innovation drives economic growth in a process of creative destruction, with the growth of emerging firms often challenging the dominance of established companies. Given the significance of the tensions between innovation and incumbency, it is surprising that little literature has explored the topic. This gap in the literature has clearly been noted by the author, stating that ‘Much of the subject matter in this book is not the focus of academic research. Science and technology studies only make passing references to the topic. Similarly, social studies of technology pay occasional attention to resistance to innovation. Most marketing studies view the topic as adoption failures.’ In this sense, Innovation and Its Enemies has contributed to the literature by developing this field as a distinctive area of scholarly endeavour.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.202 · 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