The development of aerospace clusters in Mexico
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
Introduction: High technology companies tend to cluster around knowledge-producing institutions (Braunerhjelm and Feldman, 2006). Aerospace follows this pattern, and there are well known examples of aerospace clusters located around large prime contracting aerospace producers (Niosi and Zhegu, 2005). A recent trend that is taking momentum is the setting up of manufacturing facilities by leading aerospace companies in Mexico. Objectives: The objective of this study is to investigate the attracting factors of Mexican clusters and to examine some of the country policy measures to incentive the aerospace sector, in order to assess the potential of Mexico to be a relevant part in this world-class high technology industry. Methods: A survey applied to selected aerospace firms in Mexico and interviews with regional governments are the information source. Results: Agglomeration forces in Mexican aerospace clusters are strongly related with manufacturing advantages. In addition, policy measures seem insufficient to encourage firms to undertake more complex activities. Conclusions: Even though advantages not related with innovation may explain the presence of firms in Mexico's aerospace clusters, these advantages should not be minimized given the tough quality standards of the aerospace industry, and if properly managed they may form the base for future development.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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