Evaluating technological intelligence dimensions in innovative startups: A confirmatory factor analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to study technological intelligence in innovative startups in Algeria using Kerr’s model. Technological intelligence consists of four main dimensions: intelligent systems, competitive intelligence, market intelligence, and intelligent processes. To collect data, a questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 255 innovative startups in Algeria, and the data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with Smart PLS software. The results indicated that the two-dimensional model combining intelligent systems and competitive intelligence provided the best fit, with a relationship value of 0.605 between these two dimensions. On the other hand, the relationship between market intelligence and competitive intelligence was weak, with a value of 0.281, reflecting the limited use of analytical methods by startups to monitor competitors. Based on these findings, the study recommends that innovative startups in Algeria enhance their use of competitive intelligence and intelligent systems to improve decision-making processes. Additionally, these startups should make better use of available market technologies to develop their products and services, while focusing on continuous competitor analysis and identifying opportunities. In conclusion, technological intelligence is a strategic element for startups, helping them improve their performance and achieve a competitive edge in the changing business environment in Algeria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".