MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396981099 · doi:10.69520/jipe.v6i.171

Decision Making in the Innovation Process: Data-Driven vs. Data-Informed

2024· article· en· W4396981099 on OpenAlex
Muge Abac

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of innovation in polytechnic education. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsHumber Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Process managementBusinessKnowledge managementData scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a growing trend in the use of data-related buzzwords, and “data-driven decision-making” is one of them. This buzzword is often confused with “data-informed decision-making,” emphasizing the need to understand the role of data for effective decision-making. The article explains this misconception through tables and insights from experts like Geoffrey Moore, Tendayi Viki and Alexander Osterwalder. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, using both qualitative and quantitative data, and suggests starting with qualitative insights before moving to quantitative analysis. Ultimately, it stresses the importance of aligning organizational structures to leverage data effectively for innovation.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.014
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.008
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.293 · 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