Which types of firm use collaborative innovative spaces?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative innovation spaces (CIS) can bring together multiple actors to enhance creativity, collaboration and knowledge exchange, sometimes leading to innovation. In this paper, we suggest that CIS can be categorized into three broad types (internal to the firm, external and virtual) and that each type is related to innovation processes, knowledge‐sourcing and geographic context in specific ways. Our results, based on an original firm‐level survey, reveal that there is heterogeneity with respect to firm attributes and innovation activities associated with different types of CIS. In particular, whilst innovation is associated with the use of CIS in general, radical and technological innovations are more strongly associated with internal CIS, whereas smaller firms tend to use virtual CIS. External CIS, whilst not associated with technological innovation, are associated with high‐tech firms. CIS use does not vary across geographic context. These results emphasize the importance of in‐person, internal, CIS for radical and technological innovation and the need to distinguish between different types of CIS in order to understand how each is associated with different types of innovation, knowledge‐sourcing and firm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it