Firm, market, and regulatory factors influencing innovation and commercialization in Canada's functional food and nutraceutical sector
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
Abstract Factors influencing the development and commercialization of functional food and nutraceutical (FFN) products are explored. Count data models are developed to relate firm, market, and regulatory covariates to the number of FFN product lines firms have under development, on the market, and in total. Canadian firm‐level innovation data were taken from Statistics Canada (2003) Functional Food and Nutraceutical Survey. Firms involved in product development/scale‐up had more product lines in total and on the market. Firms with a strong and positive perception of the impact of regulatory reform related to generic health claims and harmonization of Canadian regulations with U.S. regulations had fewer product lines in total and on the market. Firms with more positive perceptions of the business impact of structure and function health claims had more product lines on the market. One implication of the study is the importance of developing policies and reforming regulations which better enable use of generic health claims on FFN products. Further, policies which better enable or foster development/scale‐up of product lines would increase the Canadian FFN sector's ability to develop new products. [EconLit: O130, L500, Q180]. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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