Environmental Technology Strengths : International Rankings Based on US Patent Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patent information has been used by economists and researchers in the field of innovation to analyse current and forecast future technological directions. The recent surge in patenting activities in developed countries reaffirms the strong position of the patent system in a globalised world dominated by market mechanisms. This paper analyses the technological position of the top twelve foreign patenting countries in the USA, namely Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and UK, using four technological strength indicators based on patent data. These are the technological specialisation index (for national technological priorities), patent share (for global impact), citation rate (for further knowledge development) and rate of assigned patents (for market potential). The technological strength indicators are calculated for patents relating to environmental technologies between 1975 and 2000. These technologies are expected to have a significant impact on society, the economy and the natural environment as they have the potential to reduce the effects of global climate change. The empirical findings demonstrate that the expertise and strengths in environmental technologies are concentrated in a relatively small number of countries, namely Germany, Canada and Japan. Nevertheless, these countries show different priorities, being more successful in some aspects of technology strengths than in others.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".