MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281663745 · doi:10.1108/aci-02-2022-0048

Autonomous cycles of data analysis tasks for innovation processes in MSMEs

2022· article· en· W4281663745 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

VenueApplied Computing and Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)OriginalityTask (project management)Process managementKnowledge managementSet (abstract data type)ImplementationInnovation managementData scienceSoftware engineeringBusinessSystems engineeringCreativityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The authors propose the concept of “Autonomic Cycle for innovation processes,” which defines a set of tasks of data analysis, whose objective is to improve the innovation process in micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs). Design/methodology/approach The authors design autonomic cycles where each data analysis task interacts with each other and has different roles: some of them must observe the innovation process, others must analyze and interpret what happens in it, and finally, others make decisions in order to improve the innovation process. Findings In this article, the authors identify three innovation sub-processes which can be applied to autonomic cycles, which allow interoperating the actors of innovation processes (data, people, things and services). These autonomic cycles define an innovation problem, specify innovation requirements, and finally, evaluate the results of the innovation process, respectively. Finally, the authors instance/apply the autonomic cycle of data analysis tasks to determine the innovation problem in the textile industry. Research limitations/implications It is necessary to implement all autonomous cycles of data analysis tasks (ACODATs) in a real scenario to verify their functionalities. Also, it is important to determine the most important knowledge models required in the ACODAT for the definition of the innovation problem. Once determined this, it is necessary to define the relevant everything mining techniques required for their implementations, such as service and process mining tasks. Practical implications ACODAT for the definition of the innovation problem is essential in a process innovation because it allows the organization to identify opportunities for improvement. Originality/value The main contributions of this work are: For an innovation process is specified its ACODATs in order to manage it. A multidimensional data model for the management of an innovation process is defined, which stores the required information of the organization and of the context. The ACODAT for the definition of the innovation problem is detailed and instanced in the textile industry. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques required for the ACODAT for the innovation problem definition are specified, in order to obtain the knowledge models (prediction and diagnosis) for the management of the innovation process for MSMEs of the textile industry.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.230 · 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