MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130240585 · doi:10.1504/ijtlid.2012.044877

South Africa's national system of innovation and knowledge economy evolution: thinking about 'less favoured regions'

2012· article· en· W2130240585 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lucienne Abrahams, Thomas E. Pogue

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technological Learning Innovation and Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaUniversiteit van die VrystaatCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsInequalityNational innovation systemInnovation systemRegional scienceNational economyState (computer science)Economic geographyRelation (database)Economic growthEconomyEconomic systemPolitical scienceGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews some basic features of inequality in South African society and in the national innovation system, using national research survey data. It poses questions about how sub-national innovation systems might evolve in the ‘less favoured regions’ of South Africa. It commences with a brief overview of interpersonal inequality and the regional bias in inequality with respect to the economy. It explores this regional bias in relation to its effects on the innovation system. It integrates earlier research on innovation system perspectives in two sub-national environments, the KwaZulu-Natal and Free State provinces. The article uses particular themes from the literature on regional economies pertinent to an analysis of innovation in less favoured regions and concludes that South Africa needs locally-informed strategic approaches to push forward the formation of sub-national innovation systems, using in particular the infrastructure and resources available in universities.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technological Learning Innovation and DevelopmentSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207