Patterns of Innovation Capabilities in KIBS Firms: Evidence from the 2003 Statistics Canada Innovation Survey on Services
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
The aim of this paper is to shed light on complementarities and substitutions between various types of innovation capabilities in knowledge-intensive-based service (KIBS) firms. The data used in this study are the responses of 2,625 innovative firms to the 2003 Statistics Canada Innovation Survey on services. The empirical results suggest the presence of three patterns of complementary innovation capabilities, one pattern of substitute activities and finally, four patterns of innovation capabilities that are independent from each other. Hence, the results suggest the presence of complementarities: first, between internal R&D, external R&D, acquisition of equipment and machinery, and marketing activities; second, between external R&D, acquisition of equipment and machinery, acquisition of external knowledge and marketing activities; third, between acquisition of equipment and machinery, acquisition of external knowledge and marketing activities. Such complementarities lead to the conclusion that, in practice, managers of KIBS firms consider the consolidation of these capabilities jointly instead of separately. The paper also discusses issues related to patterns of capabilities that are substitutes and independent from each other. The results of this study also show significant heterogeneity in the determinants of the different patterns of innovation capabilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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