Public Policy, Intermediaries and Innovation System Performance: A Comparative Analysis of Quebec and Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge has become a fundamental resource of production in the economy; a major element for the innovation and the competitiveness of firms, regions and nations. This knowledge is available through the interactions between firms themselves and also with others organizations and stakeholders. These interactions often occur in places known as clusters and one of the main roles of the public bodies in economic development is to create a favourable environment to foster industrial and social development. Following the growing interest for industrial clusters, many regions have considered it as an interesting tool for public policy but in many cases, public policy has not integrated the knowledge of citizens or other stakeholders. Among these actors, we find what we call intermediary organizations (for example, professional associations, chambers of commerce, community organizations, and various new forms of governance networks), that contribute to the creation and the support of social dynamics within the networks of innovations and could be used more extensively in order to enhance public policy and introduce innovation in the public sector. In this article, we consider the role of the organizations on the meso level and we do a regional comparison in order to investigate the role of the intermediaries. We use the data from the survey of innovation done in 2003 by Statistics Canada in order to compare Ontario and Quebec, centering our analysis on the information and communication technologies (ICT) sector which is one of the most innovative in Canada. Our results show that the innovation performance relies on sources of information and high skilled labour to innovate. Also important are factors such as: The proximity of the universities and research laboratories, the presence of local and regional industrial associations, the presence of venture capital organizations, the presence of governments? organizations, as well as government financial assistance for research and development, but also new rules that meet the firm?s needs for intellectual protection. These are elements on which cluster policies should thus be centered. In such a context, cluster policies appear particularly pertinent, as this is one of the possible forms of public intermediation to be considered.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".