MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1036357591 · doi:10.31743/ppe.15405

Features of Academia-Industry Interactions in Nigeria from the Perspective of Manufacturing Firms

2010· article· en· W1036357591 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John O. Adeoti, Foluso M. Adeyinka, Kolade Odekunle

Bibliographic record

VenuePrzegląd Prawno-Ekonomiczny · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)BusinessIndustrial organizationManufacturingEconomic geographyManufacturing engineeringMarketingEngineeringEconomicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contribution of academia to economic development depends on the extent to which firms are able to employ the knowledge they generate. This paper draws from the report of a survey of Nigerian manufacturing firms aimed at ascertaining the level and scope of firms’ interaction with the academia comprising of universities and public research institutes, and their implications for building local technological capability. The results of the study showed that while firms have used existing production processes to manufacture products that are new to Nigeria, R&D capability is still relatively weak. The academia took the least position in the perception of firms as source of knowledge that had resulted in new projects or completion of existing innovative projects. Firms generally perceive the quality of R&D in the universities and research institutes to be low, and hence depend largely on their limited in-house R&D. It thus follows that building local technological capability would require raising the quality of R&D in universities and research institutes, and active promotion of collaborative R&D projects between firms and universities/research institutes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrzegląd Prawno-EkonomicznySame topicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation ModelsFrench-language works237,207