Knowledge and Cooperation for Regional Development: The Effect of Provincial and Federal Policy Initiatives in Canada and Australia 1
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
Abstract This paper examines how federal systems of government in Canada and Australia deal with the challenges of promoting regional innovation and knowledge‐based industries. It focuses on selected cases of federal and regional (provincial or municipally based) policy initiatives and structures that support cross‐sector collaboration between ‘knowledge institutions’ (such as universities) and locally based industries. The study reveals both anticipated commonalities in and unexpected differences between the Canadian and Australian innovation environments and policy approaches. Federalism, resource‐based economies and sparse population have led to similar concerns and solutions. However, building local innovation systems and networks is a question of building on social capital and Canada seems rather more inventive and effective than Australia in turning social capital into sustainable organisations. Several regions of Canada have developed very strong community involvement in networks and institutions for improving technological skills, awareness and programmes—examples which provide valuable lessons for Australia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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