MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review of Venture Capital Investing in Clean-Tech Industry from the Perspective of Policy Preferences

2014· article· en· W2055411471 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao Ling Wang, Chun You Wu, Hai Ying Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDalian University of Technology
KeywordsVenture capitalClean energyInvestment (military)Clean technologyHigh techBusinessIndustrial organizationPerspective (graphical)Capital (architecture)MarketingFinanceEconomicsEnvironmental economicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clean-tech industry, also identified as the advanced stage of eco-friendly industry and typical high-tech, has to gain enough financial support to develop. Meanwhile, it has provided substantial market opportunities as well as investment options for venture capitalist. In an attempt to form a comprehensive understanding of VC policy preferences in clean-tech sector, relevant studies have been done by researchers from organizations, universities, and firms, from various perspectives, forming an independent “niche” research field. Based on the interactive relation between industry development and clean-tech investing, this paper performs a time-sharing, multidimensional, and dynamic review on international clean-tech policies literatures, focusing primarily on investor preferences. We aim to provide references to the lenses and methods currently used for future research including policy tool design, investment attraction effects, and policy efficiency. Moreover, the findings facilitate the innovation and expansion of related research for China, by which it can form effective financial support for domestic clean-tech industry.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalFrench-language works237,207