MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121602733 · doi:10.1504/ijeim.2015.073220

Clusters, technological districts and smart specialisation: an empirical analysis of policy implementation challenges

2015· article· en· W2121602733 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEdinburgh Research Explorer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanConference Board of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Economic geographyRegional scienceBusinessIndustrial organizationEntrepreneurshipFocus (optics)MarketingKnowledge managementEconomicsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent debate on industrial policy has shifted toward innovation-related issues and economic geography. The conceptual strength and practical implementation of some of these approaches is of concern, particularly the strategic approach termed 'smart specialisation' and its focus on prioritising economic activities with greater potential for growth by relying on processes of 'entrepreneurial discovery'. The cases of Lower Austria, Lithuania and Saskatchewan reveal a wide variety of developmental pathways and associated structures, suggesting that innovation systems should not strive toward a single format. Mechanisms for identifying a region's technological and knowledge strengths are identified, as well as the existing or possible access points to the market available to a region.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.504
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.038 · 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