MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100047906 · doi:10.1111/ropr.12091

When the High Road Becomes the Low Road: The Limits of High‐Technology Competition in<scp>F</scp>inland

2014· article· en· W2100047906 on OpenAlexaff
Darius Ornston

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Policy Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoGlobal Affairs Canada
FundersUniversity of GeorgiaUniversity of California Berkeley
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Argument (complex analysis)ProsperityCapitalismGlobalizationPoliticsEconomicsBusinessEconomic systemIndustrial organizationMarket economyInternational tradeEconomyEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Globalization has generated increasing interest in technology‐intensive industries as a way to sustain national economic competitiveness. High‐technology growth is often conceptualized as a “high road” to prosperity, more amenable to private–public, industry–labor, and interfirm cooperation than tax, regulatory, or cost competitive strategies. While specialization in technology‐intensive industries does deliver several benefits, this article usesFinland's successful transformation into a high‐technology economy to highlight the significant economic and political risks associated with this strategy. Economically, movement into electronics exposedFinland to cost competition and disruptive technological innovations. Politically, high‐technology competition weakened the solidaristic ties that characterized postwar capitalism and the coordinating capacities that underpinned economic growth. In short, high‐technology growth exacerbated the problems it was supposed to solve. The article concludes by generalizing the argument to several non‐Nordic states.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Policy ResearchSame topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207