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 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.091
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