MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136403567

The Importance of Skills for Innovation and Productivity

2002· article· en· W2136403567 on OpenAlexaffabout
Someshwar Rao, Jianmin Tang, Weimin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityCompetition (biology)Standard of livingEconomicsLabour economicsCurrencyOvertimeInvestment (military)BusinessInternational tradeInternational economicsEconomic growthMonetary economicsMarket economyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid progress in skill-biased technologies has increased the demand for skilled workers in all countries. Lack of skilled workers could become a serious impediment to innovation. In this study, we first examine the importance of skills and government support for innovation using firm-level data from Statistics Canada’s Survey of Innovation 1999. We then investigate the role of differences in skills in explaining the differences in productivity levels among Canadian manufacturing industries. After controlling for other factors, we find that firms’ practices of hiring new graduates from universities and hiring experienced employees have positive and significant impacts on innovation outcomes, and that they are equally important for both product and process innovation. In addition, after controlling for industries characteristics, inter-industry differences in labour productivity levels among Canadian two-digit manufacturing industries are positively related to differences in capital intensity, R&D intensity and skills intensity, proxied by two variables: the proportion of employees with 1-3 years post-secondary education; and the percentage of employees with a university degree and more.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207