MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058766466 · doi:10.3917/riges.282.0092

Productivité et activité en R&D des entreprises manufacturières québécoises : constats et implications

2003· article· fr· W2058766466 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sylvain Tessier, Denis Lagacé

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCentre de Recherche Industrielle du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé La productivité des entreprises manufacturières du Québec est préoccupante. Le Québec a présenté au cours de la dernière décennie des écarts de performance importants malgré les efforts considérables investis en recherche et développement. Ces écarts s’expliquent, entres autres, par la forte concentration de la R&D dans quelques industries, par l’importance relative des industries liées aux ressources, par le faible niveau des investissements en machineries et équipements et, finalement, par les écarts grandissants au chapitre de la productivité industrielle. Ces constats suscitent des interrogations. Pour répondre à celles-ci, une recherche en deux volets a été effectuée. Dans un premier temps, une enquête menée auprès d’experts a permis de rassembler des informations intéressantes au sujet de la productivité et des besoins technologiques. Dans un deuxième temps, une enquête en profondeur conduite auprès d’entreprises manufacturières québécoises a révélé que le taux de pénétration des technologies varie considérablement entre les secteurs d’activités industrielles. Cette enquête fait ressortir des lacunes en matière de gestion de même qu’un recours insuffisant à la R&D.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGestionSame topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207