Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze mobile portals (m-portals) as an innovation. M-portals are wireless Web pages that help portable device users interact with mobile content and services (based on the definition by Clarke & Flaherty, 2003). Previous works in the area of mobile portals mostly concentrated on their technical aspects, implementation issues, classifications, and user acceptance (e.g., Gohring, 1999; GSA, 2002; Koivumäki, 2002). At the same time, these studies did not view mobile portals as innovations themselves, nor discussed the innovative potential of this novel technology. Analyzing technological artifacts as innovations is important for two reasons. First, such analysis can help m-portal developers and providers pinpoint the salient mportal characteristics that drive service diffusion. Second, it can assist potential m-portal developers and providers understand the risks associated with entering this segment of wireless services. This study attempts to contribute to the knowledge base by discussing various dimensions of the innovativeness of mobile portals and predicting the commercial success as well as potential risks of designing m-portals. Specifically, this investigation utilizes two innovation-based models as a lens of analysis. The first is the Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) list of perceived characteristics of innovating (PCI), which is adapted to assess the innovation features of mobile portals. The second is the Kleinschmidt and Cooper’s (1991) market and technological newness map. By applying these frameworks, the study attempts to develop a better understanding of individual innovation characteristics and the innovation typology of mobile portals that is important for both theory and practice. Mobile portals are a fruitful area of growth and interest. Even though the technology has been in use for only several years, both researchers and practitioners have devoted substantial efforts to design m-portals that would meet enduser requirements. To ensure the success of this technology, it is important to further understand its innovative potential. However, little work has been done in this area. A discussion grounded on the existing innovation schools of thought would help to bridge that gap.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".