MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968442066 · doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.870988

Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) Use and User Innovation: High-Order Services, Geographic Hierarchies and Internet Use in Quebec's Manufacturing Sector

2014· article· en· W1968442066 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Shearmur, David Doloreux

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessOrder (exchange)The InternetGeographical distanceService (business)Industrial organizationPoint (geometry)MarketingService providerTertiary sector of the economyKnowledge managementEconomic geographyComputer scienceGeographyWorld Wide WebFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shearmur R. and Doloreux D. Knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) use and user innovation: high-order services, geographic hierarchies and internet use in Quebec's manufacturing sector, Regional Studies. Geographic proximity between users and suppliers of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) provides no advantage in terms of innovation performance. This paper first establishes that it is those KIBS most closely associated with innovation that exhibit the highest mean distance to their users. It then shows that there is no connection between distance to KIBS suppliers and propensity to innovate. These results point to a Christallerian logic whereby innovators seek out KIBS (irrespective of distance), but whereby mean distances tend to be greater between users and innovation-related KIBS suppliers (located in central places), reflecting the different geographies of manufacturing users and service suppliers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional StudiesSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207