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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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
VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2023
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Systems and Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBinghamton UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de JaneiroHefei UniversityXiamen UniversityUniversiteit van TilburgTechnische Universität MünchenBrock UniversityBeijing Institute of TechnologyHefei University of TechnologyChinese University of Hong KongShanghai Jiao Tong UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityUniversität WienEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichConcordia UniversityUniversity of California, DavisSouth China University of TechnologyErasmus Universiteit RotterdamRijksuniversiteit GroningenNational University of SingaporeUniversity of North Carolina WilmingtonUniversity of OxfordUniversity College LondonYork UniversityUniversity of OregonUniversity of Western MacedoniaPurdue UniversityTemple UniversityNottingham Trent UniversityLingnan UniversityOhio State UniversityUniversity of St. ThomasTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyUniversity of North FloridaKoç ÜniversitesiXiamen University of TechnologyUniversity of MiamiUniversity of South CarolinaMcGill UniversityGeorgia State UniversityIndian Institute of Management BangaloreMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCalifornia State Polytechnic University, PomonaLunds UniversitetPennsylvania State UniversityCardiff UniversityUniversity of Notre DameUniversity of TsukubaNanyang Technological UniversityGeorgetown UniversityCarnegie Mellon UniversityTianjin UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of LeedsUniversity of DaytonMichigan State UniversityHarvard Business SchoolUniversity of OttawaUniversity of OklahomaUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoston CollegeUniversiteit MaastrichtUniversity of PittsburghWashington University in St. LouisDrexel UniversityWashington State UniversityVirginia Commonwealth UniversitySouthern Methodist UniversityTulane UniversityArizona State UniversityUniversity of TorontoPortland State UniversityUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillTrent UniversityHarvard UniversitySyracuse UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityGeorgia Southern UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaGeorge Washington UniversityYale UniversityUniversity of Nevada, RenoNorthwestern UniversityRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteCity University of Hong KongUniversity at BuffaloUniversity of RochesterUniversity of MinnesotaBrigham Young UniversityVanderbilt UniversityUniversity of CyprusBowling Green State University
KeywordsCitationComputer scienceProduction (economics)Information retrievalWorld Wide WebMicroeconomicsEconomics
Abstract
When do teams generate valuable inventions?The moderating role
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.
metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.985
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.016 |
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itQuick stats
Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes