MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156812434 · doi:10.1080/00420980410001675832

Clusters from the Inside and Out: Local Dynamics and Global Linkages

2004· article· en· W2156812434 on OpenAlexaffabout
David A. Wolfe, Meric S. Gertler

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsCentre for Social InnovationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Cluster (spacecraft)Economic geographyKey (lock)Process (computing)Production (economics)BusinessEconomic systemIndustrial organizationRegional scienceEconomicsComputer scienceSociologyGeographyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper surveys some of the current methodologies employed to analyse cluster development, as well as some of the key themes emerging from both the analytical and prescriptive literature noted above. It uses this survey as the context in which to present a synthesis of the initial findings of the current national study of industrial clusters in Canada, conducted by the Innovation Systems Research Network. The national study comprises 26 cases which aim to identify the presence of significant concentrations of firms in the local economy and to understand the process by which these regional-industrial concentrations of economic activity are managing the transition to more knowledge-intensive forms of production. The central questions in each case are: What role do local institutions and actors play in fostering this transition? How important is interaction with non-local actors in this process? How dependent are local firms on unique local knowledge assets and what is the relative importance of local versus non-local knowledge flows between economic actors? How did each local industrial concentration evolve over time to reach its present state and what key events and decisions shaped its path? And, finally, to what extent do these processes, relationships and local capabilities constitute a true cluster? Ultimately, what are the key relationships, linkages and processes that ground the cluster in its existing location?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations566
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban StudiesSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207