1,038 research outputs found

    AI-Based Innovation in B2B Marketing: An Interdisciplinary Framework Incorporating Academic and Practitioner Perspectives

    Get PDF
    Artificial intelligence (AI) rests at the frontier of technology, service, and industry. AI research is helping to reconfigure innovative businesses in the consumer marketplace. This paper addresses existing literature on AI and presents an emergent B2B marketing framework for AI innovation as a cycle of the critical elements identified in cross-functional studies that represent both academic and practitioner strategic orientations. We contextualize the prevalence of AI-based innovation themes by utilizing bibliometric and semantic content analysis methods across two studies and drawing data from two distinct sources, academics, and industry practitioners. Our findings reveal four key analytical components: (1) IT tools and resource environment, (2) innovative actors and agents, (3) marketing knowledge and innovation, and (4) communications and exchange relationships. The academic literature and industry material analyzed in our studies imply that as markets integrate AI technology into their offerings and services, a governing opportunity to better foster and encourage mutually beneficial co-creation in the AI innovation process emerges

    Effect of Impurity Scattering on the Nonlinear Microwave Response in High-Tc Superconductors

    Get PDF
    We theoretically investigate intermodulation distortion in high-Tc superconductors. We study the effect of nonmagnetic impurities on the real and imaginary parts of nonlinear conductivity. The nonlinear conductivity is proportional to the inverse of temperature owing to the dependence of the damping effect on energy, which arises from the phase shift deviating from the unitary limit. It is shown that the final-states interaction makes the real part predominant over the imaginary part. These effects have not been included in previous theories based on the two-fluid model, enabling a consistent explanation for the experiments with the rf and dc fields

    GASP II. A MUSE view of extreme ram-pressure stripping along the line of sight: kinematics of the jellyfish galaxy JO201

    Get PDF
    This paper presents a spatially-resolved kinematic study of the jellyfish galaxy JO201, one of the most spectacular cases of ram-pressure stripping (RPS) in the GASP (GAs Stripping Phenomena in Galaxies with MUSE) survey. By studying the environment of JO201, we find that it is moving through the dense intra-cluster medium of Abell 85 at supersonic speeds along our line of sight, and that it is likely accompanied by a small group of galaxies. Given the density of the intra-cluster medium and the galaxy's mass, projected position and velocity within the cluster, we estimate that JO201 must so far have lost ~50% of its gas during infall via RPS. The MUSE data indeed reveal a smooth stellar disk, accompanied by large projected tails of ionised (Halpha) gas, composed of kinematically cold (velocity dispersion <40km/s) star-forming knots and very warm (>100km/s) diffuse emission which extend out to at least ~50 kpc from the galaxy centre. The ionised Halpha-emitting gas in the disk rotates with the stars out to ~6 kpc but in the disk outskirts becomes increasingly redshifted with respect to the (undisturbed) stellar disk. The observed disturbances are consistent with the presence of gas trailing behind the stellar component, resulting from intense face-on RPS happening along the line of sight. Our kinematic analysis is consistent with the estimated fraction of lost gas, and reveals that stripping of the disk happens outside-in, causing shock heating and gas compression in the stripped tails.Comment: ApJ, revised version after referee comments, 15 pages, 16 figures. The interactive version of Figure 9 can be viewed at web.oapd.inaf.it/gasp/publications.htm

    Internal lee wave closures : parameter sensitivity and comparison to observations

    Get PDF
    Author Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2015. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 120 (2015): 7997–8019, doi:10.1002/2015JC010892.This paper examines two internal lee wave closures that have been used together with ocean models to predict the time-averaged global energy conversion rate into lee waves and dissipation rate associated with lee waves and topographic blocking: the Garner (2005) scheme and the Bell (1975) theory. The closure predictions in two Southern Ocean regions where geostrophic flows dominate over tides are examined and compared to microstructure profiler observations of the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate, where the latter are assumed to reflect the dissipation associated with topographic blocking and generated lee wave energy. It is shown that when applied to these Southern Ocean regions, the two closures differ most in their treatment of topographic blocking. For several reasons, pointwise validation of the closures is not possible using existing observations, but horizontally averaged comparisons between closure predictions and observations are made. When anisotropy of the underlying topography is accounted for, the two horizontally averaged closure predictions near the seafloor are approximately equal. The dissipation associated with topographic blocking is predicted by the Garner (2005) scheme to account for the majority of the depth-integrated dissipation over the bottom 1000 m of the water column, where the horizontally averaged predictions lie well within the spatial variability of the horizontally averaged observations. Simplifications made by the Garner (2005) scheme that are inappropriate for the oceanic context, together with imperfect observational information, can partially account for the prediction-observation disagreement, particularly in the upper water column.National Science Foundation Grant Number: OCE-0960820; Office of Naval Research (ONR) Grant Number: N00014-11-1-0487; Australian Research Council Grant Number: (DE120102927 and CE110001028); National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant Number: (22R23085)2016-06-1
    corecore