Take off and Crash: Lessons from the Diverging Fates of the Brazilian and Argentine Aircraft Industries
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
What are the factors that allow for success or failure of developing countries' attempts to enter high-tech sectors? We make a initial attempt to answer that question through a comparative study of success and failure in manufacturing aircraft. Aircraft production is one of the key industries in the world today, as reflected in the intense Boeing-Airbus rivalry. It is also one of the most cyclical, technologically-sophisticated, and capital-intensive industries, and therefore an unlikely place for a developing country to compete. But almost from the birth of modern commercial aircraft manufacturing, Argentina's Fábrica Militar de Aviones (FMA) was at the forefront of production. Brazil's aircraft industry was tiny in comparison at that time. Yet, by the 1990s, Brazil's Embraer had become the world's third largest aircraft manufacturer, while the Argentine aircraft industry has virtually disappeared. We examine the history of each company to explain the differences in trajectories and their fates. Our analysis demonstrates that an evolutionary but consistent partnership between state and firm, one attuned to both the exigencies of sectoral development and to changes in the nature of global markets, is necessary for success.
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 | 0.000 | 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