MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182865769

ICT, INNOVATION, WAGES AND LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY. NEW EVIDENCE FROM SMALL LOCAL FIRMS TIC, INNOVACIÓN, SALARIOS Y PRODUCTIVIDAD DEL TRABAJO. NUEVA EVIDENCIA PARA EMPRESAS PEQUEÑAS Y LOCALES

2013· article· es· W2182865769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Díaz Chao, Ficapal Cusí, Torrent Sellens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityLabour economicsSample (material)Quarter (Canadian coin)WageOrdinary least squaresEconomicsWelfare economicsEconomic growthGeographyEconometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses new co-innovative sources (ICTs, human capital and training, and new forms of work organisation) of labour productivity in small firms producing for local markets. Using 2009 survey data for a representative sample of 464 firms based in Girona (a province in the north-east of Spain) and using Ordinary Least Square (OLS) econometric estimation techniques, two main findings have emerged from the study. First, that mean wage is the main determinant of labour productivity. And second, unlike the evidence available for larger firms, co-innovation does not have a total effect on explaining small local firm's labour productivity. Causal relationships between co-innovation and labour productivity have only been identified in the innovative small local firms, one quarter of the sample.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207