MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404853235 · doi:10.59876/a-es2g-vy4a

Innovation in the Artificial Intelligence sector: An exploratory study of the structure of co-inventor networks

2024· article· en· W4404853235 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean-Sébastien Lantz, Delphine Lacaze, Éric Braune, Jean‐Michel Sahut

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementPosition (finance)BusinessNetwork structureContext (archaeology)Key (lock)Exploratory analysisArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceIndustrial organizationData scienceComputer securityMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through an analysis of the global co-inventor networks of the 30 most innovative companies in Artificial Intelligence (AI), this research provides three key contributions: 1) the two dimensions of co-inventor networks: “encapsulation of information and knowledge,” concerning the overall network structure, and “accessibility to information and knowledge,” related to the inventor’s position within the network; 2) geographic location influences the structure of these networks; 3) the most innovative companies strategically choose between these dimensions in a global competitive context. These findings reignite the debate on the importance of connectivity and central positioning versus brokerage to achieve high levels of patent production in AI.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueManagement internationalSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207