MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209250349 · doi:10.1142/s1363919621400065

FROM DESCRIPTION TO ACTION: ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

2021· article· en· W3209250349 on OpenAlex
Samantha Sieklicki, Stoyan Tanev

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

VenueInternational Journal of Innovation Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjectivity (philosophy)Computer scienceKnowledge managementActor–network theoryContext (archaeology)OntologyAction researchAction (physics)Participatory action researchEpistemologyData scienceManagement scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Actor-network theory (ANT) represents a research paradigm applicable to innovation management (IM) research. Its unique ontology of second-degree objectivity through symmetry can be combined with many research contexts, methods, and concepts. This paper summarises the insights from a literature review of 299 Web of Science articles on both ANT and IM. The meta-features of all articles are analysed to identify 25 articles for in-depth analysis. Three ANT literature streams are identified: descriptive, managerial proactive, and participatory proactive. These three streams are found to differ in terms of their specific methods, concepts, and research contexts. An additional subset of the 10 most cited articles is used to validate the findings. We suggest that IM researchers should select a specific ANT approach based on the context and the theorised hypothesis of their research. Knowledge of the options within ANT and how they can be applied to different IM contexts can help IM researchers in maximising research outcomes.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.254 · 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