Evaluating the science-technology interaction in nanotechnology: a simulation-based study
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
Nanotechnology as an emerging, science-driven and rapidly evolving field with the multidisciplinary nature is an example of cases where science and technology are proximate and their interaction is essential. The scientific and technological networks can be formed separately in a social context and the linkages from the scientific to the technological network can be established through authors-inventors who act as gatekeepers and bridge the knowledge between the two communities. This work concerns individual researchers who are doing both, patenting and publishing, in the field of nanotechnology in Quebec Canada. An agent-based model was developed using real data regarding both nano-related articles and their authors, and nano-related patents and their inventors were collected from SCOPUS and USPTO databases respectively. While the repetitiveness in collaborative relationships has shown an enhancement in author-inventors performance, it negatively affects the knowledge flow efficiency. Author-inventors are fundamentals for increasing the network productivity and assure its interconnectivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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