Go Beyond the Local Search: Understanding the Impact of AI Capabilities on Exploratory Innovation
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
The firms typically depend on technological assets or inter-firm relationships to pursue exploratory innovation. In this paper, we regard Artificial Intelligence (AI) as an exploratory innovation-seeking instrument by which AI may search unexplored resources and thereby broaden the boundary of firm. Drawing on the theory of bounded rationality and organizational learning, we hypothesize the impact of a firm’s AI capabilities on exploratory innovation and how AI influences traditional boundary-expanding activities. Our empirical investigations, using a novel AI capabilities measure constructed with AI conference and patent datasets, show that AI capabilities have positive impacts on exploratory innovation. In addition, the results show that extant technological assets (i.e., traditional data management capabilities) and ongoing inter-firm relationships (i.e., inter-firm technology collaboration) remedy the constraints on a firm’s innovation-seeking behaviors and that these boundary-expanding activities negatively moderate the positive impact of AI capabilities on exploratory innovation. Our key takeaway is that we investigate how AI affects exploratory innovation using our newly developed AI capability measure, contributing to the body of knowledge on exploratory innovation literature.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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