The Nature of Technology¶
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Free Press.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Exaptation
- Arthur (2009) treats this kind of recombinant repurposing of existing components as the dominant mode of technological evolution, where new technologies are assembled largely from existing ones pressed into unforeseen roles.
This sourceArgues technologies evolve combinatorially—new technologies are assembled largely from existing ones recombined and pressed into new roles—supporting the claim that recombinant repurposing of existing components is a dominant mode of technological evolution.
- Arthur (2009) treats this kind of recombinant repurposing of existing components as the dominant mode of technological evolution, where new technologies are assembled largely from existing ones pressed into unforeseen roles.
- Self-Organized Criticality
- Innovation ecosystems exemplify self-organized criticality through emergence of dominant platforms and industries from chaotic periods of experimentation, startup churn, and failure, an evolutionary churn Schumpeter (1942) named "creative destruction" and Arthur (2009) elaborates in his account of technology as a self-organizing combinatorial system.
This sourceTreats innovation ecosystems as combinatorial, self-organizing systems where chaotic experimentation and recombination produce dominant platforms and industries; complements Schumpeter's (1942) creative-destruction account of how startup churn and failure drive macro-scale industrial structure.
- Innovation ecosystems exemplify self-organized criticality through emergence of dominant platforms and industries from chaotic periods of experimentation, startup churn, and failure, an evolutionary churn Schumpeter (1942) named "creative destruction" and Arthur (2009) elaborates in his account of technology as a self-organizing combinatorial system.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:64c92710907e · see in the full table