MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233046058 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10353

Developing an Innovation Engine for a Web Startup

2014· dissertation· en· W4233046058 on OpenAlexaff
David Ker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNew VenturesGlobalizationQuality (philosophy)BusinessComponent (thermodynamics)Space (punctuation)Knowledge managementConstructiveEntrepreneurshipEngineeringMarketingIndustrial organizationEngineering managementComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The globalization of market is progressing steadily as barriers to the free flow of goods, services, and capital declined since the end of World War II.This trend results in substantial increase in foreign competitions, consequently it increases the needs for new ventures to better differentiate by other basis than cost and quality.The thesis at hand used a constructive methodology to design an improved entrepreneurial framework.The purpose of the research is to provide theoretical foundations for new ventures to better cope with business opportunities discovery.The core contribution of the research is the conceptual development through real-world application of the project space model, an element of the Innovation Engine described by Bailetti (2013), to help new technology venture to increase their chances of success in determining the right market niche.The research also tries to provide answers to the following research questions: i) is the innovation engine model suitable for a web--based new ventures, ii) how can the project community component of the innovation engine be adopted by new ventures, iii) what processes new ventures can used to better cope with opportunity discovery?I would like to thank my advisors Michael Weiss, Tony Bailetti, Daniel Blanchette, Jon Milne and Rajiv Muradia for their times, support, wisdom, and guidance.The patience of each has allowed me to pursue my research interests and comments have helped to me seek the big picture in my research and identify implications for my findings.Likewise

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207