MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396508097 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-15963

Using Actor-Network Theory to Examine the Invention-to-Innovation Transition of SWG Photonic Meta-Materials

2024· dissertation· en· W4396508097 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Sieklicki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council CanadaOptiwave Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)NoveltyAdaptation (eye)Knowledge managementActor–network theoryComputer scienceBusinessSociologyPsychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines how Actor-Network Theory (ANT) can be adapted to provide proactive insights on ongoing invention-to-innovation transitions when the researcher is not an active participant in the innovation.To this end three related research questions are addressed after a forward-looking adaptation of ANT is proposed, and the case study of photonic meta-materials innovation is chosen to test the method.1) Descriptive ANT is applied to the invention phase through the collection and analysis of four related datasets showcasing different innovation actors.2) Topic modeling is performed on novelty claims from the journal articles as an additional approach to identify key innovation actors and tensions.3) Possible future innovation directions are explored in an examination of the ongoing tensions between key innovation actors.Overall, a forward-looking ANT approach identifies ongoing tensions between key innovation actors whose method of resolution is likely to determine the future direction of photonic meta-material innovations.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Science and technology studies

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Theoretical 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207