MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095787439 · doi:10.7202/602351ar

Les obstacles à l’innovation dans les industries de services au Canada

2009· article· fr· W2095787439 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on OrganizationsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

De nombreux travaux se sont penchés sur les conditions qui favorisent les efforts en matière d’innovation technologique dans les entreprises canadiennes. L’objectif de cette étude est d’examiner l’innovation sous l’angle opposé, à savoir les obstacles perçus à l’innovation. Nous examinons les obstacles dans les industries des communications, de la finance et des services techniques. Les données proviennent de l’enquête innovation de 1996 menée par Statistique Canada. Premièrement, nous essayons de faire ressortir quelques facteurs expliquant la perception des obstacles à partir d’une analyse des données et d’un modèle économétrique. Deuxièmement, nous cherchons à déterminer dans quelle mesure certains obstacles sont complémentaires entre eux. Si complémentarité il y a, il faut adopter une approche systémique aux barrières à l’innovation pour y remédier efficacement.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.177 · 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