A Study on the Factors That Influence Innovation Activities of Spanish Big Firms
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 main goal of this research is to study the role of several factors and firms’ resources that could have had an impact on the development of innovative activities of Spanish big firms, exploring how these factors can help to achieve success through innovation and improving business performance. We propose a new model to analyze the relationships between a set of organizational, technological, financial and information-based resources, as well as other aspects such as company’s cooperation. We employ a Structural Equation Model and the PLS technique in order to validate the theoretical model proposed in this research. The data come from the Spanish National Statistics Institute’s Survey on Firms Technological Innovation. The sample is composed by 2224 observations referred to firms with 200 or more workers. The main results show that human and financial resources and cooperation affect positively R&D activities. At the same time R&D, information management and technological resources have a positive effect on innovation. Finally, R&D activities, innovation results (product and process innovation) and information management influence business results.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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