Engaging with startups through corporate accelerators: the case of H‐FARM's White Label Accelerator
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
Corporate accelerators have emerged in recent years as an innovation mechanism that builds bridges between corporations and startups. Through inbound Open Innovation (OI) activities, established firms open their innovation processes to startups to acquire their knowledge. Previous research has focused either on independent accelerators or on corporate accelerator programs that an established firm operates internally. The literature on how accelerators orchestrate different OI practices is sparse, yet large corporations are forging ahead with corporate accelerators. Furthermore, new corporate accelerator models have emerged, rendering the corporate accelerator phenomenon more heterogenous. In this paper, adopting an OI lens, we explore the White Label Accelerator (WLA), a recent model in which an independent accelerator manages the program on behalf of a single corporate organization. Through an in‐depth case study of Technogym Wellness Accelerator, a pioneer and most important WLA in Italy set up by H‐Farm on behalf of Technogym, a large fitness and wellness company, we investigate how such accelerators function as an OI tool. We found four key dimensions that enable successful outcomes. In particular, the importance of entrepreneurial alertness as a key driver for the effective exploitation of intellectual property represents a significant finding. Our research contributes to OI and entrepreneurial finance literature and provides insightful managerial implications to corporate accelerator stakeholders and startups' managers.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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