MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213015112 · doi:10.17230/ad-minister.39.10

Knowledge Commercialization Framework: factors affecting developing countries

2021· article· en· W4213015112 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

VenueAD-minister · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationGuidelineKnowledge transferKnowledge managementBusinessTechnology transferConceptual modelConceptual frameworkPolitical scienceMarketingSociologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amid economic pressure and inclination for independent financing, universities tend to commercialize knowledge, a growing trend emerging as an entry gate for the privatization of scientific advancements and the development and transfer of technology from universities. Numerous studies have been conducted on the commercialization of knowledge. This article aims to integrate previous studies and develop a comprehensive model out of the factors cited in those studies. Therefore, 57 relevant articles were analyzed to identify the indices of knowledge commercialization within the framework of a systematic review literature guideline. In addition to guideline validate criteria, three university professors were interviewed for conceptual model include the subjects (contextual, individual, organizational, institutional, and environmental), and components.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.251 · 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