MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411201585 · doi:10.1007/s10961-025-10220-y

Reverse knowledge spillover theory of public sector entrepreneurship

2025· article· en· W4411201585 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto Vivona, Mehmet Akif Demircioğlu, Emre Cinar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Technology Transfer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNord universitet
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipKnowledge spilloverSpillover effectPublic sectorBusinessKnowledge managementIndustrial organizationEconomicsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Existing research has emphasized that public sector knowledge is conducive to stimulating entrepreneurship. This article shifts the focus and extends the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship (KSTE) by introducing a theoretical framework for reverse knowledge spillovers (RKS), which explores how private sector knowledge catalyzes entrepreneurial activity within the public sector. Drawing on KSTE, open innovation theory, and public sector entrepreneurship literature, we delineate key elements of RKS (such as actors, types of innovation, dimensions of proximity, and transfer mechanisms), and examine the relationships between these elements. This study highlights the practical and policy implications of RKS, advocating for more dynamic interactions between private and public sectors. By fostering these interactions, this research aims to inform strategic management and policy-making, ultimately strengthening and enhancing entrepreneurial ecosystems.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Technology TransferSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207