MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Evolution of an Innovation System in a Rural Area: The Case of La Pocatière, Québec

2007· article· en· W2083980812 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Doloreux, Stève Dionne, Bruno Jean

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContextualizationDiversification (marketing strategy)Economic geographyContext (archaeology)Innovation systemAgricultureRelation (database)Regional scienceRegional innovation systemEconomyEconomic systemPolitical scienceBusinessSociologyEconomicsGeographyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article aims to examine the development trajectory of a local innovation system in a rural region, namely La Pocatière, Québec (Canada), from an extended historical perspective (1830–2005). More specifically, its objective is to identify and analyse historical factors that give us a better understanding of the main determinants of the special heritage of this innovation system and of the institutional context in which it emerged and evolved. In short, the relation between the dynamics of innovation and institutional change is examined over time. Historical documents are analysed and the research provides a description and contextualization of the development of this innovation system, and of its spread, particularly in the farming and agricultural‐science sector initially, and subsequently in technological and industrial areas (physical technologies and the transport equipment industry). Four main periods are described, corresponding to changes in types of institutional behaviour in relation to innovation: a phase of setting up pioneering institutions and innovations (1827–1911), a phase of growth and influence of the agricultural‐science institutions (1911–62), a phase of rupture, economic diversification and development of the technological cluster (1962–97), and a phase of redeployment and growing complexity of the elements of the innovation system (1997–2005).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207