Evaluation innovation research performance and trend of the worldwide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovation is one of the most important fields in research and development of new knowledge or service today, making research innovation trend is an important issue. This study evaluates the worldwide innovation development trend of research for the past sixteen years and provides insights into the characteristics of innovation research activities to identify an innovation development map, tendencies, or regularities that may exist in papers. Data are based on the online version of SSCI, Web of Science from 1993 to 2008. Articles referring to innovation were assessed according to many aspects including exponentially fitting publication outputs during 2002–2008, distribution of source title, author keywords, and keyword plus analysis. The exponential fitting of the yearly publications of the last decade can also calculate that, in 2014, the number of scientific papers on innovation will be twice the number of publications in 2008. Synthetically analyzing four kinds of keywords, this work analysis concludes that innovation application relates to issues based on knowledge, technology, R&D and entrepreneurship. The result displays that the USA is number one in innovation research totaling 6,317 papers, followed by UK totaling 2,354 papers. Other leading countries in innovation research include Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Australia and Italy.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it