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 empirical studies in the area of Open Innovation (OI) reveal that there is a significant bias in favour of countries on the technological frontier. The present study aims to bridge this gap by examining firms in Portugal, a country at an intermediate stage of technological development. Based on 70 innovative firms, we found that whatever perspective of the OI model is considered, firms tend, on average, to share a relatively closed innovation model when compared with firms located in countries where technological development is advanced. About a quarter of the surveyed firms implemented the OI model in their innovation strategy/business, this being much more widely disseminated regarding the absorption of external knowledge/technology, with almost 40% of firms surveyed acknowledging its use in comparison with the perspective of transfer of knowledge/technology to other organisations — less than 10% provide their “surplus technology” to other organisations. This result may indicate a lack of awareness of the economic potential of making internally created technologies available to third parties, albeit this potential might also depend on other circumstances such as technology architecture (the system and interdependence of technologies).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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