MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596581898

Capacites d'innovation: le capital de savoir, gage de survie et de croissance des entreprises

2006· article· fr· W1596581898 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Baldwin, Guy Gellatly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent document décrit les constatations tirées d'un programme de recherche visant à souligner l'importance des compétences qui découlent des investissements dans l'actif incorporel pour le processus de croissance des entreprises. Le programme comportait deux parties. Premièrement, des bases de données longitudinales ont fourni un riche ensemble d'études sur les entrées, les sorties, les fusions et d'autres aspects de la dynamique liée à la croissance et au déclin des populations d'entreprises. Ces études ont démontré l'omniprésence de la croissance et du déclin dans la population des entreprises. En soi, elles n'indiquent pas quelles stratégies distinguent les entreprises les plus prospères des moins prospères. Voilà pourquoi nous avons créé un ensemble d'enquêtes-entreprises qui ont permis de concevoir des profils sur le genre de compétences qui découlent des investissements dans le capital organisationnel. À leur tour, celles ci ont été reliées aux données administratives pour nous permettre de classer les entreprises comme étant en expansion ou en déclin. Nous nous sommes alors demandés quel était le lien entre les différences dans les compétences et le rendement des entreprises.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207