MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172158788 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n13p45

Evaluating National Innovation System of Malaysia Based on University-industry Research Collaboration: A System Thinking Approach

2015· article· en· W2172158788 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abeda Muhammad Iqbal, Adnan Shahid Khan, Farrukh Bashir, Aslan Amat Senin

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia
KeywordsMainstreamNational innovation systemDomain (mathematical analysis)Innovation systemRegional innovation systemBusinessKnowledge managementPolitical scienceRegional scienceEngineering managementComputer scienceSociologyEngineeringIndustrial organizationEconomicsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National innovation system (NIS) is an essential, effective and dynamic factor for the development of the nation. Despite the enormous research activities on NIS, there have been certain issues still remaining in this domain specially, in developing countries. Several articles have been published to deal with the factors affecting NIS of Malaysia but the role of research collaboration between university and industry (UIRC) on NIS is totally unattended in mainstream literature. Thus, the objective of this study is to determine the influence of UIRC on the NIS of Malaysia. Additionally, this study aims to indicate the current innovation performance and to identify the existing constraints of NIS. For the purpose of system modeling, system thinking approach is used to conceptualize and analyze the effect of UIRC on NIS. The result of this research shows that constraints of UIRC in Malaysia negatively influence on the success of NIS.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207