The Comparison of Basic Science Research Capacity of OECD Countries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper presents a new measurement technique to derive the level of BSRC (Basic Science and Research Capacity) index by use of the factor analysis which is extended with the assumption of the standard normal probability distribution of the selected explanatory variables. The new measurement method is used to forecast the gap of Korea`s BSRC level compared with those of major OECD countries in terms of time lag and to make their international comparison during the time period of 1981-l999, based on the assumption that the BSRC progress function of each country takes the form of the logistic curve. The US BSRC index is estimated to be 0.9878 in 1981, 0.9996 in 1990 and 0.99992 in 1999, taking the 1st place. The US BSRC level has been consistently the top among the 16 selected variables, followed by Japan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, in order. Korea`s BSRC is estimated to be 0.2293 in 1981, taking the lowest place among the 16 OECD countries. However, Korea`s BSRC indices are estimated to have been increased to 0.3216 (in 1990) and 0.44652 (in 1999) respectively, taking 10th place. Meanwhile, Korea`s BSRC level in 1999 (0.44652) is estimated to reach those of the US and Japan in 2233 and 2101, respectively. This means that Korea falls 234 years behind USA and 102 years behind Japan, respectively. Korea is also estimated to lag 34 years behind Germany, 16 years behind France and the UK, 15 years behind Sweden, 11 years behind Canada, 7 years behind Finland, and 5 years behind the Netherlands. For the period of 1981-1999, the BSRC development speed of the US is estimated to be 0.29700. Its rank is the top among the selected OECD countries, followed by Japan (0.12800), Korea 0.04443), and Germany (0.04029). The US BSRC development speed (0.2970) is estimated to be 2.3 times higher than that of Japan (0.1280), and 6.7 times higher than that of Korea. German BSRC development speed (0.04029) is estimated to be fastest in Europe, but it is 7.4 times slower than that of the US. The estimated BSRC development speeds of Belgium, Finland, Italy, Denmark and the UK stand between 0.01 and 0.02, which are very slow. Particularly, the BSRC development speed of Spain is estimated to be minus 0.0065, staying at the almost same level of BSRC over time (1981-1999). Since Korea shows BSRC development speed much slower than those of the US and Japan but relatively faster than those of other countries, the gaps in BSRC level between Korea and the other countries may get considerably narrower or even Korea will surpass possibly several countries in BSRC level, as time goes by. Korea`s BSRC level had taken 10th place till 199. However, it is estimated to be 6th place in 2010 by catching up the UK, Sweden, Finland and Holland, and 4th place in 2020 by catching up France and Canada. The empirical results are consistent with OECD (2001a)`s computation that Korea had the highest RD and the value-added of ICT industries in total business sectors value added is 12% in Korea, but only 8% in Japan. And OECD (2001b) observed that Korea, together with the US, Sweden, and Finland, are already the four most knowledge-based countries. Hence, the rank of the knowledge-based country was measured by investment in knowledge which is defined as public and private spending on higher education, expenditures on R&D and investment in software.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».