MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998932574 · doi:10.1109/emr.2020.2964741

Is It Time to Reassess the Front-End Innovation Approach?

2020· article· en· W2998932574 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Engineering Management Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFront and back endsFront (military)BusinessIndustrial organizationComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A poor innovation concept can rarely be converted into a commercial or social success. Based on three decades of teaching and practice, the author argues that there are three main areas at the front end of innovation that can significantly increase the probability of success. By focusing on these simple aspects of the innovation process, namely adoption behavior, differential advantage (vis-à-vis benchmarks), and the role of stakeholders in the decision-making process, innovation teams should see significant improvements in their results. In practice, few innovation management systems truly incorporate these into their processes, which require a shift to a more systematic approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.022
Scholarly communication0.0220.048
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0150.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.273
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Engineering Management ReviewSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207