MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307865779 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2022.8.001

Ex-ante project management for disruptive product innovation: A review

2022· review· en· W4307865779 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisruptive innovationDisruptive technologyEx-anteInnovation managementProduct innovationProduct (mathematics)New product developmentArgument (complex analysis)BusinessKnowledge managementMarketingEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disruptive innovation has attracted much interest, discussion and argument in academia and industry since it was defined. Based on a review of the related research publications, this paper aims to clarify the concept of disruptive innovation on controversies, summarize ex-ante studies on project management for disruptive product innovation, and propose potential research areas of the disruptive product innovation. The ex-ante studies are classified into three aspects: timing and conditions of disruptive innovation, factors for the implementation of disruptive innovation, forecasting and implementation of disruptive innovation. After a review of the existing methods of disruptive innovation, the potential research of disruptive innovation is presented.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.423
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.092 · 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