Innovation Models to Deliver Value at Scale: The RTB Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Collaborative programs that facilitate innovation to deliver value at scale require attention to effective program design, management, governance, and leadership. The CGIAR has experimented with different collaborative program design options over its 50-year history, most recently with the CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) implemented from 2012 to 2021. This chapter examines the structure and processes of the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). It unpacks the constituent institutional innovations that underpinned the RTB program, their key design principles, how they evolved over the 10 years of the program, the innovations achieved, and the outcomes to which they contributed. Turbulence and transformations in the CGIAR system influenced the CRPs' emergence, design, and delivery. In this chapter, we discuss the RTB approach to collaborative governance and management as complex institutional innovations operating within this broader, dynamic system. This includes attention to opportunities, limitations, and other contextual factors influencing RTB's work. Institutional innovations include stakeholder consultations and priority setting, a portfolio organized by aggregated innovations, or clusters of activities, articulated flagship projects, incentive funding, a dynamic interactive communication ability, and programmatic embedding of strategic and integrated gender research. RTB's design, governance, and management innovations added value to the combined achievements of the participating centers in science and research for development outcomes, described in the following chapters.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".