An exploratory study on how SMEs are open to external sources of information
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to draw on recent developments in the open innovation literature to explore whether the openness of SMEs to the four categories of external sources of information (ESI) is complementary, substitute or independent, while assessing the determinants of SMEs’ openness to these ESI. Design/methodology/approach This research is based on data from a survey of 451 manufacturing SMEs in the province of Québec, Canada. Data have been elaborated through a multivariate probit model to empirically show that SMEs are considered to be simultaneously open to different ESI. The results of this study show significant heterogeneity in the determinants of SMEs’ openness to these ESI. Findings The study found that the SMEs’ openness to different ESI seems to be complementary rather than substitute; and not all variables included in the model explain the SMEs’ openness to the different ESI. Practical implications The paper provides practical implications for managers and policy makers including the SMEs’ managers’ role to recognize the consolidation of different ESI jointly instead of separately. Furthermore, managers and policy makers should attempt to provide a fair context to SMEs to manage their openness ecosystem. Originality/value This study is virtually the first to investigate both the complementarity and the determinants of SMEs’ openness to different ESI using a sophisticated econometric model.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it