MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning from the tigers- comparing innovation institutions in rapidly developing economies with Latin America

2009· article· es· W2101126608 on OpenAlex
Anil Hira

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProblemas del Desarrollo Revista Latinoamericana de Economía · 2009
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansPolitical scienceHumanitiesGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artículo compara las políticas e instituciones de innovación en Latinoamérica con las economías e instituciones de los tigres de Asia Oriental y de Europa. Encontramos que hay nítidas diferencias en las políticas sobre recursos, priorización y organización de la ciencia y la tecnología entre Latinoamérica y las de los tigres, que tal vez ayuden a explicar el decepcionante desempeño económico de la región en las décadas recientes. El artículo sugiere que es necesaria una sistemática reorganización de la política de innovación en Latinoamérica. Las concordancias de los tigres sugieren que una similar reevaluación no solamente debe considerar niveles de recursos, sino también nuevos marcos institucionales para priorizar, coordinar y comercializar nuevas tecnologías generadoras de mayores beneficios para toda la economía y la sociedad.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.202 · 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