Оpen and Closed Innovation: A Comparative Analysis of National Practices
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
This paper sets about identifying different and complex innovation practices across nine countries by exploring data from firm level innovation surveys conducted in nine countries: Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea and the United Kingdom. Our results suggest that innovating firms in these countries adopt one or more of the following innovation modes: 1) ‘new-to-market innovating’, 2) ‘marketing based imitating’, 3) ‘process modernising’, 4) ‘wider innovating’. The extent to which IPRs, external technology, design or marketing activities play a role in these innovation practices varies across countries. For example, in Austria, Denmark and New Zealand diffused technology (externally acquired R&D) is used together with own technology in bringing about novel products, suggesting a more open innovation pattern. In contrast, among firms in France, New Zealand and the UK we identify a greater reliance on IPRs (e.g. patents, copyrights and design registrations) while at the same time omitting externally acquired technologies. The latter may be interpreted as leaning towards a closed approach to innovation among a group of firms.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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