MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092018667 · doi:10.47670/wuwijar201712damc

Osterwalder’s business model canvas: Its genesis, features, comparison, benefits and limitations

2017· article· en· W3092018667 on OpenAlexaff
Donovan A. McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueWestcliff International Journal of Applied Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness Model CanvasBusiness modelArtifact-centric business process modelContext (archaeology)Computer scienceKnowledge managementProcess managementBusiness process modelingBusinessMarketingBusiness processGeographyWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay is a brief exploration of Osterwalder’s Business Model Canvas. The author discusses the genesis of the Business Model Canvas, the unique features of the approach of the Business Model Canvas, and then compares the Business Model Generation to other business model approaches. Finally, the benefits and/or limitations of using Osterwalder’s business model canvas in the context of the author’s organization – a higher education organization, are examined.

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 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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestcliff International Journal of Applied ResearchSame topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207