MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525247717

A Composite Index of the Creative Economy

2008· article· en· W1525247717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harry P. Bowen, Willem Moesen, Leo Sleuwaegen

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Business and Economic Literature (Printed)/Review of Business and Economic Literature (Online) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingBenchmark (surveying)Openness to experienceComposite indicatorIndex (typography)GeographyEconomicsEconometricsComputer scienceCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article develops and presents a “Composite Indicator of the Creative Economy” (CICE). The CICE is a summary measure of an entity’s (e.g., a region’s) creative capacity or capability in three key dimensions: Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Openness. To develop the CICE we use an innovative method to determine the weights used to “add-up” the information contained in the data on the three dimensions. Our method – endogenous weighting – allows each entity (e.g., region) to have its own set of the weights, which are chosen to maximize the entity’s CICE score value. We use our endogenous weight methodology to benchmark the creative capacity of nine regions: Baden-Württemberg, Catalonia, Flanders, Lombardy, Maryland, Nord-Pas-De-Calais, Quebec, Rhône-Alpes, Scotland. Our analysis shows that Baden-Württemberg ranks highest in terms of creative capacity while Nord-Pas- De-Calais ranks lowest. Among the nine regions, Flanders ranks 3rd in creative capacity behind 2nd ranked Maryland. However, Flanders’ rank masks that its CICE score value is 25% below that of Baden-Württemberg and 11% below that of Maryland, indicating a non-trivial gap in creative capacity between Flanders and “best practice.”

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Business and Economic Literature (Printed)/Review of Business and Economic Literature (Online)Same topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207