Moving an eInnovation from a Living Lab to the Real World: Politically Savvy Framing in ITAIDE's Beer Living Lab.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living Labs have been established as real-life pilot settings in which IT innovations are developed and validated. Once these steps have been completed, these innovations are ready to be moved out of the Living Lab environment into the real world. In many cases Living Lab innovations require not only technological but also socio-political and institutional changes to be made in order for them to be adopted. The need of sociopolitical and institutional changes becomes especially visible in cases where Living Lab participants attempt to propose innovative solutions for domains that are highly regulated. The reason for that is that in such cases, often the existing legal requirement would need to be adjusted first, in order to create grounds for the further adoption of the innovation. The question as to how to achieve such legal changes related to Living Lab innovations in a highly regulated environment has received vey limited attention. In this paper, we specifically focus on understanding of framing processes and how they are used by the Living Lab participants in a politically savvy way to mobilize a multilevel network of actors in their attempts to bring institutional change. We further investigate this framework through a case study involving a variety of framing processes that took place in the Beer Living Lab. The Beer Living Lab is part of the ITAIDE project that aims to develop and test an eCustoms solution for international trade. In addition to our contribution of the conceptual framework and the accompanying empirical case study, we also identify further implications for practitioners who are involved in similar Living Labs in highly regulated environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".