MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Open R&D in Large Corporations

2024· book-chapter· en· W4392024040 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Roschek, Erica Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsNestlé (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Open innovation (OI) is a method that can help address the challenges in R&D that organizations face. This chapter offers insight into the evolution of strategically applied OI principles at Nestlé Purina R&D. Leaders in innovation roles have a duty to connect to and find the potential in the people they lead, the processes they adopt, and opportunities they bring forth. This creates a cycle of resilience, leading to openness and increased trust. Silos in organizations impose some limitations on the ability to connect and trust colleagues in other departments. Organizations must therefore create structures, programs, and practices to help drive these behavioral changes and manage existing and new knowledge flows that are necessary to execute on longer-term innovation objectives. The principles of OI, applied internally, can overcome these organizational hurdles.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207