MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994779290 · doi:10.1080/13662710802040853

Specialization of Regions and Universities: The New Versus the Old

2008· article· en· W1994779290 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustry and Innovation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersMarcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfond
KeywordsProductivityEconomic geographyProduction (economics)Set (abstract data type)Regression analysisRegional scienceEconomicsDemographic economicsGeographyEconomic growthStatisticsMicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes whether there is a correspondence between a university's research specialization and industrial specialization in the region hosting the university, and to what extent universities influence regional productivity. Moreover, the analysis seeks to answer if a difference can be detected between the influences of old and new universities on regional performance. To achieve this end we utilize a unique data set on spatially disaggregated data for Sweden in the period 1975–99. A two‐step Heckman regression analysis is implemented to examine whether universities' research specialization matches regional specialization in production as compared to the average region. The results suggest a correspondence in specialization, as well as positive productivity effects. However, there are also considerable differences across regions, albeit primarily unrelated to the age of the universities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.148 · 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