MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884679137 · doi:10.11586/2021027

Good practices in mission-oriented innovation strategies and their implementation

2021· article· en· W6884679137 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovation, Technology, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Corporate governanceCitizen journalismPoliticsDemocracyGood governanceBest practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern innovation policies should target in equal measure both economic competitiveness and societal progress. They should be informed by ambitious, overarching principles-based strategies that enable us to formulate specific political goals, or missions. We also need governance structures that allow for the agile, participatory and inclusive implementation of innovation policy measures. Presenting good examples of such strategies and structures at work in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Sweden, Canada and Japan, our study examines what these examples have to offer in terms of lessons learned that are relevant for Germany and Europe. The results of this study are published as a results paper within the framework of the Reinhard Mohn Prize 2020 project, “Fostering Innovation. Unlocking potential.” This Bertelsmann Stiftung project is tasked with identifying promising mechanisms, institutions and strategies that could be applied to efforts advancing innovative capacity in Germany and Europe. The twofold aim of such efforts is to ensure, for one, that we remain technologically – and thus economically – competitive. But just as important is the need to address societal challenges while ensuring humane, democratic and inclusive economic development. With this vision in mind, the Bertelsmann Stiftung conducted an extensive international good-practice research study and, in cooperation with the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, bundled the findings into four so-called results papers. Additional results papers in the “Innovation for Transformation” series address issues such as Networking and exchange in mission-oriented innovation processes, Addressing societal challenges through disruptive technologies and Fostering innovative startups in pre-seed phase. The final publication in this series, An agenda for the future: Innovation for transformation, presents a summary of the results papers’ overarching conclusions.

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)0.156
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1560.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.046
Scholarly communication0.0280.017
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.332 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft)Same topicInnovation, Technology, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207