MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3168125145 · doi:10.1111/jpim.12586

Framing the microfoundations of design thinking as a dynamic capability for innovation: Reconciling theory and practice

2021· article· en· W3168125145 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Magistretti, Lorenzo Ardito, Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Product Innovation Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofoundationsFraming (construction)Dynamic capabilitiesExtant taxonManagement scienceEpistemologyKnowledge managementSociologyEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.032
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations168
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Product Innovation Management→Same topicDesign Education and Practice→French-language works237,207→