Bibliographic record
Abstract
The particular roles played by governments through their policies and programmes are considered within a comparative context in order to gain an understanding of construction innovation systems and processes. The analysis of this question is grounded in a framework which develops: a typology of construction related activities, a precise definition of innovation, the measurement of innovation, and models linking R&D and innovation. Comparative findings suggest that the political and social structures of individual countries do not create radical differences in their national approaches to innovation. However, government structure, the type of national innovation system and the nature of construction institutions influence the choice of specific policy instruments. A summary of findings from a task group is presented which reviews various national policies towards innovation in construction. Country specific observations are drawn from case studies of 15 countries in Europe, North and South America, South Africa and Japan. Often public policy instruments in support of innovation have not been of real benefit to the construction industry. Recommendations are made to improve the focus and utility of future policy initiatives for innovation, including: the creation of collaborative arrangements with industry initiated research and emphasis on performance and sustainability. Dans cet article, les auteurs comparent les rôles particuliers joués par les gouvernements au travers leurs politiques et leurs programmes afin de mieux faire connaître les nouveaux systèmes et procédés de construction. L'analyse de cette question se fait dans un cadre qui propose une typologie des activités liées à la construction, une définition précise de l'innovation, la mesure de l'innovation et des modèles qui lient la R&D et innovation. Des résultats comparatifs laissent à penser que les structures politiques et sociales de chaque pays ne créent pas de différences radicales entre les approches nationales en matière d'innovation. En revanche, les structures gouvernementales, le type de système national propre à l'innovation et la nature des institutions du domaine de la construction ont une influence sur le choix d'instruments d'intervention spécifiques. On trouvera la synthèse des résultats des travaux d'un groupe d'étude accompagnée d'une présentation de diverses politiques nationales en matière d'innovation dans le secteur de la construction. Des observations spécifiques par pays sont extraites d'études de cas provenant de 15 pays d'Europe, d'Amérique du nord et du sud, l'Afrique du sud et le Japon. On constate que les moyens publics d'intervention en faveur de l'innovation n'apportent pas toujours de réels avantages à l'industrie de la construction. Des recommandations sont faites pour améliorer la portée et l'utilité des futures initiatives politiques en faveur de l'innovation; il faudrait notamment élaborer des formules de coopération dans le cadre d'actions de recherche engagées par l'industrie et faire en sorte qu'une plus grande importance soit accordée aux performances et on développement durable.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".