Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovation among food processing firms is their lifeblood and commonly referred to as PPD—product and process development. For others—including the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2005) besides PPD innovation—this also includes marketing and organizational development. This paper examined the extent to which these other dimensions of innovation are evident in this sector based on eight actual commercialization experiences. Data was obtained from 61 in-depth interviews with senior executives of firms and those along their respective supply chains, including customers. The data revealed commercialization results from multiple advances, called innovative initiatives. This research found the presence of the PPD definition, but it alone is insufficient to explain the more robust nature of innovation. Food processors are successful when they co-invent with customers and seek expertise beyond their firms to those across their supply chains and engage specialists, such as researchers and industry organizations. Further research needs to examine how innovators balance both PPD with other business activities, the importance of trusted relations, and decisions about resource allocation over 2 to 12 years. These are all critical when commercializing innovation in the food processing sector. Keywords: PPD innovation, multiple definitions of innovation, commercialization of innovation, agri-food processing sector, Manitoba Canada, case study research
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".