Milieux innovateurs: Determinants and policy implications
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
National and regional differences are more and more frequently explained by differences in milieux. This type of explanation raises three questions: Can we identify milieux? What are the determinants of milieux? Are there differences between industries in the matter of determinants of milieux? Most studies on milieux innovateurs are based on case studies and qualitative data. This paper is quantitative and comparative in nature. It attempts to identify milieux and their determinants by using data from the 1999 Statistics Canada Innovation Survey. Based on two synthetic indicators of interactions (weak/strong) and learning (weak/strong), four categories of milieux innovateurs are differentiated which become the dependent variables. In order to see what the determinants of the various milieux innovateurs are and to see in what ways the most favorable milieux innovateurs compare to the others, binomial logit models have been estimated for four industries using the following independent variables: competitive pressures, barriers to knowledge exchange, use of government support, number of employees, collaborative arrangements, R&D activities, regions.
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 | 0.001 | 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