MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315778721 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.286

Development of a Digital Innovation Framework that is Renowned Globally

2023· article· en· W4315778721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sameh M. Saad, Samah Alnuiami

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Technological Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processComputer scienceDigital transformationGlobeFlexibility (engineering)Innovation managementProcess managementKnowledge managementIndustrial organizationBusinessOperations researchManagementEconomicsEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolvement of the digital era/Industry 4.0 forces us to think differently about our life, new product development, new manufacturing environment, new communication procedures and even new ways of managing innovation in today's digital era. Industry 4.0 shifts the manufacturing lines’ dynamics and improves organisations’ profit. Innovative management substantially changes the world's smart transformation perspective in the manufacturing and services industries. Very little research was found on the digital era implication on innovation management. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a digital innovation framework that considers almost the globe's involvement during the development and validation stages. This includes seven prestigious countries from the major parts of the world, namely; the UK, UAE, USA, Germany, Japan, China, and Canada. The proposed innovation framework was developed based on the practitioner's contributions from these seven countries, considering the impact of digitalisation-push and the demand-pull as main criteria, with many sub-criteria associated with each main criterion. The framework is then validated through a comprehensive questionnaire administrated by the practitioners from each of the mentioned seven countries using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which has the flexibility to combine quantitative and qualitative mixed-methods and is used to collect data and carry out a pairwise-comparison between main criteria and sub-criteria. Moreover, the proposed framework provides the innovation processes required to handle the demand-pull and consider the digitalisation push.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicEconomic and Technological InnovationFrench-language works237,207