Collaboration, information and the geography of innovation in knowledge intensive business services
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
Most studies on the relationship between space and innovation have focused on local factors to explain spatial variations in the innovation performance of firms. Few papers have considered the relationship between innovation and the wider spatial structure within which firms operate. This article has three objectives. First, we investigate whether innovation varies in a continuous manner across space. Second, we explore whether these spatial variations can be explained by variations in information gathering and collaborative behavior. Finally, we seek to verify whether these conclusions are robust to the inclusion of local fixed effects. We find that innovation varies both across continuous space and across discrete territories. However, this geography is not affected by firms’ information gathering and collaborative behaviors. Since these factors, usually considered as explanations of geographic variation in firm level innovation, have no effect, this reveals limits to our understanding of the geography of innovation which call for further exploration.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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