Influence of Venture Capital and Knowledge Transfer on Innovation Performance in the Big Data Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technological innovation requires large investments. Venture capital (VC) is a prominent financial source for innovative start-ups. A venture capitalist will inevitably transfer knowledge to facilitate the innovation of a firm while monitoring and advising its portfolio companies. Only when a firm has its own valuable new knowledge and high growth potential would venture capitalists select it. At the same time, big data knowledge, such as customer demands and user preferences, is also important for the new product development of a firm in the big data environment. Therefore, private knowledge transferred from venture capitalists, new knowledge developed independently by a firm itself, and big data knowledge are the three main types of knowledge for venture-backed firms in the big data environment. To find the influences of VC and knowledge transfer on the innovative performance of venture-backed firms, a model of maximizing the present value of the expected profit of new product innovation performance of a venture-backed firm in the big data environment is presented. The model can help venture capitalists to determine the scale of investment and the optimal exit time and predict the internal rate of return (IRR). This model can also help innovative start-ups to illustrate the value and prospects of a project to attract investment in their business prospectus.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".