MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192366787 · doi:10.15446/innovar.v31n81.95576

Innovación social y frugal: ¿de qué estamos hablando?

2021· article· es· W3192366787 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovar · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El concepto de innovación ha evolucionado con el paso del tiempo. A partir del siglo XX, este adquirió una connotación positiva y eminentemente tecnológica, pero, como reacción al paradigma tecnológico-económico prevalente, en la actualidad se estudian otras formas de innovación. En el marco de los trabajos sobre innovación, el propósito de este texto es aclarar los conceptos de innovación social y frugal, enfatizando su medición. El enfoque de la investigación es cualitativo basado en la revisión de la literatura. Entre las conclusiones destaca que la innovación social y frugal comparten características con la innovación tecnológica, pero para avanzar en su comprensión se deben reconocer sus particularidades e interrelaciones. Asimismo, es especialmente importante trabajar en propuestas sobre cómo medir innovaciones sociales y, sobre todo, frugales porque, comparado con la medición de la innovación tecnológica, este es un asunto mucho menos explorado.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · 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